The Delhi High Court in the case Subhashini Ratan And Ors. vs. Legislative Assembly Secretarait NCT of Delhi and Ors observed and has stayed the of the Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat disengaging the services of Fellows and Associate Fellows under the Delhi Assembly Research Centre Fellowship Programme.
The bench headed by Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case observed and was informed that the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly was himself in the case of the view that both the reasons which are given for terminating the petitioners were not applicable to the posts held by them.
The court in the case stated that the tenure of the petitioners was terminated prematurely which being on the ground that the reservation policy had not been followed while making the appointments and that the approval of the Lt. Governor had not been taken in the matter.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the that the Hon’ble Speaker had himself raised his objections for termination of the services of the Petitioners and those who are similarly situated, the court issued the notice to the Respondents to show cause as to why there is a sudden change in the attitude of Respondent No.1 in agreeing for the termination of the posts of the Fellows mid-way during the tenure in the matter.
The court while issuing the notice to the Secretariat directed that the services of the petitioners shall not be discontinued and they shall be given their stipends.
Therefore, It being the case of the petitioner that they were appointed pursuant to an advertisement which is issued by the Legislative Assembly and that selections to the post were made in the year 2019, after following proper recruitment process.
Therefore, the said court is appraised that the services of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons were being regularly extended after every two years, and that barring a few, the tenure of them would end in December, 2024.
The petitioner in the plea argued before the court that both the reasons given by the Secretariat for disengaging their services were untenable in law. Thus, they placed reliance on the letter given by the Speaker of Legislative Assembly, where the latter had stated that both the reasons given for terminating the petitioners were not applicable to the posts which is held by them.
The counsel, Advocate Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advocate Ms. Asmita Singh, Advocate Mr. Harshit Goel and Advocate Mr. Siddhant Singh appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Adv. for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam, Advs. Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, SC (Civil), GNCTD with Mr. Kartik Sharma, Ms. Prashansa Sharma and Mr. Arun Panwar, Advs. for R-1 and 3. Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu, Advs. for R-1 to 3. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC (Services) for Respondent No. 2. Represented the respondent.