Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, the writ petition was filed by serving Delhi High Court employees to challenge the appointment of the Respondents 3 to 52 as Junior Judicial Assistants to the Delhi High Court, and also to challenge the orders dated 16-10-2018, 17-11-2018 and 5-12-2018 issued by Respondent 1, the Division Bench of Manmohan, and Mini Pushkarna, JJ., opined that the present writ petition had serious constitutional and administrative issues and requested Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani to assist the Court as an amicus curiae on the next date of hearing.
In the instant case, the petitioners submitted that the respondents were appointed as ‘Data Entry Operators' for one year on a contractual basis and on a monthly consolidated salary. However, the said appointment was on the condition that the candidates would not have a right to claim regularization as ‘Data Entry Operators '.
The petitioner stated that the respondents were regularized in the post of ‘Junior Judicial Assistants (Data Entry) Ex-Cadre' vide the impugned order dated 16-10-2018 and 17-11-2018 and such appointment was in violation of the Recruitment Rules of the post of Junior Judicial Assistants.
The petitioner further contended that such regularization was not in accordance with law and was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, (2014) 14 SCC 50.
The petitioner stated that, during the contractual service, the respondents had submitted various representations for regularization, however the same was rejected by the Selection Committee. The petitioner further stated that the IT Committee of this Court upon consideration of a fresh representation of the Respondents 3 to 52, recommended the regularization of the Data Entry Operators as Junior Judicial Assistants.
The petitioner submitted that the subject matters of recruitment and regularization of employees of the present Court were under the ambit of the Selection Committee and not of the IT Committee. Moreover, the IT Committee did not take into account previous decisions of the Selection Committee, while recommending the regularization of the Data Entry Operators as Junior Judicial Assistants.
The Court opined that the present writ petition raised serious constitutional and administrative issues and thus, requested Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani to assist this Court. Therefore, the Court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the paper book to the Attorney General for India with a request to assist this Court as an amicus curiae on the next date of hearing.
The matter was next listed on 21-9-2023.
[Meenakshi Chaudhary v. Delhi High Court, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5250, Order dated 22-8-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Amita Singh Kalkal, Aditi Gupta and Devrat Pradhan, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Gautam Narayan, Advocate; C. Mohan Rao, Senior Advocate with Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Prasanna S., Swati Arya and Yuvraj Singh Rathore, Advocates
