In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has firmly upheld the decision of a Delhi University college to terminate the services of an ad-hoc assistant professor, while simultaneously dismissing the educator's allegations of caste-based discrimination. The court emphasized that the teacher failed to provide concrete, specific evidence to substantiate his claims of bias, highlighting the stringent standards required in such service-related disputes.
Court's Rationale on Burden of Proof
Justice Sanjeev Narula, in a recent order, articulated a clear legal principle: "The plea of caste bias also carries a serious allegation of bad faith.... In service matters, the standard approach is that the burden lies heavily on the person alleging bad faith, and the pleadings must disclose particulars sufficient to make out a prima facie case.... The petitioner's pleadings remain broad and conclusionary, without the kind of specific material." This statement underscores the judiciary's expectation for detailed, factual substantiation when serious accusations like discrimination are made in employment contexts.
Details of the Case
The case involved Narender, an ad-hoc assistant professor in Hindi at Maharaja Agrasen College, who was relieved of his duties after several years of service. He contended that the college orchestrated his removal through deliberate manipulations in the roster and subject-wise placements, specifically targeting him due to his Scheduled Caste (SC) status. Narender pointed out that two other ad-hoc assistant professors in Hindi—one from the unreserved category and another from the Other Backward Classes (OBC)—were retained, while he, as an SC appointee, was replaced.
Court's Analysis on Reservation and Appointments
The court addressed Narender's arguments by clarifying the nuances of reservation policies in educational appointments. It noted, "A reserved category candidate is not barred from competing for an unreserved post, but that is a different proposition from claiming that the roster must preserve a reserved slot regardless of reduction in workload-driven posts." This observation highlights that while SC candidates can apply for unreserved positions, the existence of a reserved post is contingent on actual teaching requirements, not an automatic entitlement.
Furthermore, the court reinforced the temporary nature of ad-hoc appointments, stating, "The very architecture of ad hoc appointments recognises that such engagements are made to meet short-term teaching requirements." This rationale supports the college's decision to discontinue Narender's services based on operational needs rather than discriminatory intent.
Jurisdictional and Legal Aspects
In its ruling, the Delhi High Court also concurred with the college's legal representative, advocate Amit Khemka, on a jurisdictional matter. It agreed that the commission for scheduled castes lacks the authority to adjudicate service-related disputes, reinforcing that such matters fall squarely within the purview of the judiciary. This aspect of the judgment clarifies the appropriate legal channels for addressing employment grievances in educational institutions.
The court's decision serves as a reminder of the high evidentiary threshold required in cases alleging discrimination, particularly in the sensitive arena of caste-based bias. It underscores the importance of presenting specific, material facts to support such claims, rather than relying on broad or conclusionary statements. This ruling may influence future similar cases, setting a precedent for how service matters and discrimination allegations are handled in India's higher education sector.
