Tanisha Rana
Published on: 09 August 2022 at 17:09 IST
The High Court of Delhi in the matter of has made it clear in its judgement that a person appointed on ad hoc basis or as a daily wage worker, who does not meet the qualification criteria and requisite certification, cannot as a matter of his/her right claim to continue to be a part of such employment.
In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Dinesh Kumar was employed as a caretaker for the respondent college. The required qualifications for the post as prescribed were “matriculation with some experience of maintenance of electrical, sanitary, water installations and supervision of normal building repairs.”The petitioner requested the respondent institution to make his job on permanent basis as well as give increment in his annual.
However, the governing body of the respondent college recommended in its meeting that the petitioner should be appointed purely on ad hoc basis. The respondent college informed the petitioner to undergo training in certain field only after which the approval for permanency will be given to petitioner.
This made the petitioner approach the High Court for the regularisation of his services, however, the said Court disposed of the petition and held that his services cannot be regularised. The HC also ordered the respondent college to take a decision, according to the suitability of the petitioner and to also decide to whether continue him in service or not, within a period of two months.
Unhappy and discontented by the HC judgement, the petitioner by a Letter Patents Appeal approached a Division Bench of the Court, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawal of the letter by the court. During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent college issued termination letter to the petitioner, whereby his services as caretaker for the college were discontinued. Aggrieved and unhappy with the decision, the petitioner again approached the HC under Article 226 of the Constitution, against the termination letter issued by the college.
The single judge bench, comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed, “Upon having perused the records of the case and having analysed the facts of the case at hand, it emerged that the petitioner did not meet the qualification criteria and necessary certification.”
“Despite the opportunities granted, he failed to undergo the requisite professional or skill-based training and failed to furnish the certificate for the same.”
“As such, an employee on daily wages or appointed on an ad hoc basis, as a matter of right, cannot claim to be employed for a position to which one is ineligible.”
The challenge to the termination order was dismissed by the court citing that the claim made by the petitioner was ineligible. However, while providing the judgement, the court made some worthwhile observations. The court on the issue of maintainability of the respondents claim made it on the grounds of Res Judicata and existence of alternate remedy.
- RES JUDICATA
The court in this matter considered two primary questions, that is, whether the principle of res judicata can be applied to writ petitions, and if yes, whether the said petition could be barred by this principle.
The Court referred Section 11 of the CPC and various judicial pronouncements. The court opined that res judicata can be applied in cases of writ petitions as well. However, it is also necessary to fulfil the important ingredients of the principle of res judicata. Applying the same to the case present, it was observed that the instant petition held no ground and was thus barred by the principle of res judicata as the petition was unable to fulfil the ingredients of the principle of res judicata.
- EXISTENCE OF AN ALTERNATE REMEDY
Regarding the second observation made by the court, whether an alternate remedy was a bar to the entertainment of the writ petition by the HC, the court held that existence of any alternate remedy cannot by itself bar the court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain matters.
The Court, ultimately opined that the petitioner appointed on ad hoc basis or as a daily wage worker, who does not meet the qualification criteria and requisite certification, cannot as a matter of his/her right claim to continue to be a part of such employment.