Jyoti Singh JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
1. Present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking directions to the Respondents to continue the services of the Petitioner in the post of Legal Consultant (Law) till regular appointment against the post as well as for directions to Respondent No. 3 not to initiate the fresh process for appointment of Legal Consultant on contractual basis by replacing the Petitioner with another contractual employee.
2. The factual narrative required for deciding the petition is in a narrow compass. Petitioner was a practicing Advocate and was empanelled with Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) in the year 2015 as a panel Advocate (Civil). In August 2018, Respondent No. 3 issued an Advertisement for appointment of one Legal Consultant (Law) in consultation with DLSA (Central). Pursuant to the Advertisement, in September, 2018 the name of the Petitioner was forwarded by DLSA to Respondent No. 3, along with a few other advocates.
3. Interview was conducted on 04.09.2018 by the Selection Committee comprising of District Magistrate (Central), Additional District Magistrate (Central) and Sub-Divisional Magistrate (HQ). Being successful in the interview, Petitioner was selected and offer letter was issued on 12.09.2018 appointing her as Legal Consultant (Law) on contract basis, subject to her acceptance.
4. Vide letter dated 13.09.2018 Petitioner accepted the appointment on the terms and conditions offered, pursuant to which an Agreement was entered into between her and Respondent No. 3 and the Petitioner joined on 17.09.2018. The appointment was for an initial period of six months commencing from the date of joining i.e. 17.09.2018, extendable, subject to satisfactory performance or till regular appointment was made, whichever was earlier.
5. The case as set out by the Petitioner is that the work and performance of the Petitioner being satisfactory, the contract of the Petitioner was extended for a period of one year from 01.03.2019 to 29.02.2020 vide letter dated 05.03.2019. It is averred that there are 12 Legal Consultants in total, working in 11 Districts in Delhi and one, at Revenue Headquarters/Respondent No. 2, all on contract basis, with same terms and conditions as applicable to the Petitioner. Contractual engagement of all the other Legal Consultants was also extended by Respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 05.04.2019.
6. Petitioner avers that the contract of the Petitioner expired on 29.02.2020 but no letter was issued extending her contract for further period of one year and she was not allowed to continue, whereas all the other Legal Consultants continued working.
7. The petition was filed under an apprehension that Respondent No. 3 was initiating fresh process of appointment of a Legal Consultant in Central District, on contractual basis, replacing the Petitioner. When the petition was listed on 20.03.2020 counsel appearing for GNCTD had given a Statement before the Court that the Respondents shall maintain status quo regarding the subject matter of the petition, till the next date of hearing and petition was adjourned to 12.05.2020. On account of the Nationwide lockdown due to Pandemic COVID-19, petition was not listed on 12.05.2020, the scheduled date.
8. On 10.06.2020 Respondent No. 2 issued a Circular extending the period of engagement of Legal Consultants appointed on contract basis, in all the 10 Districts and Revenue HQ, except for the Central District in which the Petitioner was working and the reason given in the Circular for non-extension in the said District was that the matter was 'subjudice' before this Court.
9. Issuance of this Circular triggered the filing of an application before this Court, being CM No. 14332/2020, by the Petitioner seeking directions to the Respondents to extend her services in terms of the said Circular. Notice was issued on the said application on 07.07.2020 grantin........