NEW DELHI: Today, in the case of DINESH KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS., Delhi High Court said that an unqualified person cannot claim his right to get employment.
The Bench headed by Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said –
“Upon having perused the records of the case and having analyzed 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.”
In the said case, the petitioner filed a case against a college in which he was working. The 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 to give an annual increment. However, the college recommended the petitioner undergo training in electricity and sanitation within a period of one year. The recommendation was accordingly approved.
The College informed the petitioner about the said requirements to be fulfilled within the span of one year. The petitioner approached the High Court praying for his regularisation, however, the petition for the same was disposed of and it was held that his services could not be regularized. The respondents were asked to take a decision, on the suitability of the petitioner for the post and whether to continue him in service, within a period of two months.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner by way of Letter Patents Appeal approached a Division Bench of the Court, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. During the pendency of the said appeal, the College issued a letter to the petitioner, whereby his services as Caretaker were terminated. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The challenge to the termination order was dismissed citing the ineligibility of the Petitioner. However, it is also worthwhile to note the observations made by the Court on the issue of maintainability raised by the Respondents on grounds of Res Judicata and the existence of an alternate remedy.
Though the Court disapproved the petitioner’s action of not availing the remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it observed that since the petition is pending since 2009, it would not be appropriate to dismiss it on technicalities
“Industrial Disputes Act is self-contained umbrella legislation that covers the panorama of employer-employee issues in the industrial space. As such, the benefits of the welfare legislation must be utilized by the aggrieved employees. Although alternative remedy is not a bar, the trend of directly approaching the High Court by way of a writ petition without having availed the statutory remedies needs to be checked and frowned upon.”