Title: DR. GEETA OBEROI v. NATIONAL JUDICIAL ACADEMY
Date of decision: 30.06.2023
+ W.P.(C) 8487/2023, CM APPL. 32341/2023, CM APPL. 32343/2023, CM APPL. 32342/2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
Introduction
The High Court of Delhi upheld the dismissal of Dr Geeta Oberoi, a contractual lecturer at the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal, based on a show cause notice given to her in 2021 for “encouraging and harboring” stray canines on campus.
Justice Jasmeet Singh denied the professor’s petition, which challenged the Academy’s Director’s show reason notice given on February 012021, as well as the Executive Committee’s order terminating her employment on May 13. The Executive Committee was made up of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who also serves as the Academy’s Chairperson, Justice M R Shah, Justice KM Joseph, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Facts of the case
According to the Committee’s resolution, the agenda item was to make an appropriate decision on the show cause notice issued to Prof. Oberoi.
The Committee observed that, despite the fact that the professor’s contract expired on August 7, 2021, the then-Executive Committee opted to keep her services on hold until further directives.
As a result, it was decided that “the current Executive Committee has resolved that Prof Geeta Oberoi will continue in service until 30 June 2023 and no further.” It is also decided that she may keep her official residence until July 31, 2023.”
In 2021, the professor provided an interim as well as a thorough response to the show cause notice. She had also written to the Executive Committee requesting a personal hearing.
Senior Advocate Anand Grover, who represented the professor, argued that, while the appointment’s nomenclature was contractual, it was similar to a regular appointment because it was made in response to an advertisement for a professor vacancy, which was followed by an interview. He also said that the claims of feeding stray dogs were not “grave misconduct.”
ASG Balbir Singh, on the other hand, said that the professor was a contractual employee whose last term of employment expired on August 7, 2021, and that she had no current contract.
Courts analysis and decision
It was also claimed that the Executive Committee passed a resolution indicating that the employment should be retained until the proper decision on the show cause notice was made when the contract of service was still in effect. He went on to say that the professor’s reliance on the resolution was irrelevant because the contract had expired. In dismissing the petition, Justice Singh stated that after the professor’s term of service expired, compliance with the resolution became irrelevant owing to the contract’s expiration.
In dismissing the petition, Justice Singh stated that after the professor’s contract of service expired on August 7, 2021, and was not renewed, she could no longer rely on the terms and conditions. Rejecting the professor’s claim that her appointment was comparable to regular scheduling, the court stated that her dismissal was not stigmatic nor vengeful because it was due to the expiration of the contract of employment.
Judgment- click here to review the judgment
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Anushka Satwani
