LI Network
Published on: October 4, 2023 at 15:22 IST
The Delhi High Court has reversed its interim order that had previously stayed the termination of Fellows and Associate Fellows under the Delhi Assembly Research Centre Fellowship Programme, as decided by the Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat.
Justice Subramonium Prasad acknowledged that the Supreme Court had declined to stay the operation of the letter issued by the Delhi Government’s Services Department, which directed the disengagement of the Fellows and Associate Fellows in July.
The court noted, “Propriety demands that this Court ought not have passed any interim order which had the effect of staying the Order dated 05.07.2023 and other consequential orders.”
However, Justice Prasad emphasized that the fellows are free to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate clarifications.
The fellows had sought legal recourse after their tenures were terminated prematurely, citing concerns that the reservation policy had not been followed during their appointments and that approval from the Lt. Governor had not been obtained.
The Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat and other authorities filed an application requesting the vacation of the interim order issued on September 21, which had temporarily protected the fellows’ services and ensured they received their stipends until the next hearing date.
The authorities argued that the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023, was challenged by the Delhi Government in the Supreme Court, and their application to stay the letter discontinuing the fellows’ engagement was rejected.
They asserted that since the matter was pending before the Apex Court, the High Court should not have restrained them from discontinuing the fellows’ services, as it would amount to a stay on the letter that the Supreme Court chose not to interfere with.
On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner fellows contended that the Supreme Court’s order would not apply to them since they were not parties to the proceedings before the Supreme Court.
The court, in its disposal of the plea, stated, “The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since the Apex Court has not passed any order in the I.A. No.13505/2023, it is open for this Court to consider the same, cannot be sustained.”
The petitioners argued that they had been appointed following an advertisement issued by the Legislative Assembly, and selections for the positions were made in 2019 after a proper recruitment process.
During a previous hearing, it was revealed that the services of the petitioners and others in similar situations had been regularly extended every two years, with only a few set to end their tenure in December 2024.
The petitioners contended that both reasons provided by the Secretariat for terminating their services were legally untenable. They cited a letter from the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, in which the Speaker had stated that neither of the reasons given for terminating the petitioners applied to their positions.
CASE TITLE: SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
