Admonishing varsity for ‘arbitrary, discriminatory’ appointment, HC directs senior technical assistant’s regularisation

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the act of appointing a candidate selected for a regular post on a contractual basis without any justification is inherently arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Advertisement

The assertion came as Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj directed Central University of Punjab and another respondent to issue “the benefit of appointment to petitioner-employee on a regular basis forthwith and without any delay.

Justice Bhardwaj was hearing a petition filed by Ajit Paul Singh through counsel Sharmila Sharma. His stand in the matter was that appointment letter was “arbitrarily and illegally issued for engagement by way of contractual service” though he had gone through regular recruitment process for direct recruitment. The varsity, on the other hand, had contended among other things that the petitioner continued to serve on a contractual basis “without protest and with a break in service upon the expiry of each contractual term prior to subsequent renewal”.

Justice Bhardwaj rejected the varsity’s argument that the petitioner’s contractual engagement without protest barred his claim. “What matters is that he did approach this court promptly when the subsequent advertisement seeking to fill up the post afresh came to light, thereby causing real and tangible prejudice to his rights.”

Justice Bhardwaj observed that the doctrine of acquiescence did not apply where an action was fundamentally illegal. An employee’s silence under duress or fear of victimisation could not be held against him.

“The doctrine of acquiescence has no application where the act complained of is inherently arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is not uncommon for individuals, especially those under economic duress, to endure such illegalities in silence for fear of victimization or discontinuance,” Justice Bhardwaj asserted.

Rejecting the varsity plea that the petitioner, unlike another similarly placed candidate did not immediately challenge the terms of his appointment, Justice Bhardwaj asserted: “The right to claim parity of treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot be defeated merely on the basis of delay in legal action, more so, where the cause of action and the factual substratum remain identical.”

The court categorically ruled that such arbitrary classification was wholly impermissible and “strikes at the heart of equality of opportunity in public employment.” Allowing the petition, Justice Bhardwaj added the entire recruitment process was for direct recruitment against a regular post. However, the subsequent act of issuing an appointment letter stipulating contractual engagement was “an utter deviation from the advertised terms and amounts to a unilateral and arbitrary alteration of conditions not stipulated.”

The Bench ordered that the benefits of appointment would be calculated notionally from the date of initial appointment, while the actual benefits of regular appointment and grade pay would be released within a month from the receiving the order.