Delhi High Court Vacates Stay On Termination Of Delhi Assembly Fellows

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday vacated its interim order staying the decision of the Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat disengaging the services of Fellows and Associate Fellows under the Delhi Assembly Research Centre Fellowship Programme.

Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that the Supreme Court in July had refused to stay the operation of the letter issued by Delhi Government’s Services Department directing the disengagement of the Fellows and Associate Fellows.

“Propriety demands that this Court ought not have passed any interim order which had the effect of staying the Order dated 05.07.2023 and other consequential orders,” the court observed.

However, Justice Prasad said that it is always open for the fellows to approach the Supreme Court to get appropriate clarifications.

The fellows had moved court after their tenure was terminated prematurely 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.

The application was filed by Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat and other authorities seeking vacation of the interim order passed on September 21 vide which notice was issued on the plea and it was ordered that till the next date of hearing, the services of the fellows shall not be discontinued and they shall be given their stipends.

It was the authorities’ case that the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023, has been challenged by the Delhi Government in the Supreme Court and that the application seeking stay of the letter discontinuing the engagement of the fellows was rejected.

It was submitted that since the issue was pending before the Apex Court, the High Court ought not to have restrained the authorities from discontinuing the services of the fellows as it would amount to stay of the letter which the Supreme Court chose not to interfere with.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the petitioner fellows submitted that the order passed by the Supreme Court would not be applicable to the petitioners as they are not party to the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

While disposing of the plea, the court said, “The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since the Apex Court has not passed any order in the I.A. No.13505/2023, it is open for this Court to consider the same, cannot be sustained.”

It was the case of the petitioners that they were appointed pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Legislative Assembly and that selections to the post were made in the year 2019, after following proper recruitment process.

On previous hearing, the court was apprised that the services of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons were being regularly extended after every two years, and that barring a few, their tenure would end in December, 2024.

The petitioners had argued that both the reasons given by the Secretariat for disengaging their services were untenable in law. 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 held by them.

Case Title: SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 920

Click Here To Read Order