* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.8576/2007 % Date of Decision : February 27, 2008 Bhupinder Kaur & Ors. …..Petitioner Through : Mr. M.R. Farooqui Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Advocates Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi .…Respondent Through : Ms. Smita Shankar Ms. Gurupyani Dwivedi Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest ? SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J : (Oral) 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by an advertisement issued by the respondent the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on 30th October, 2007, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Nursery Teachers on contract. That advertisement also makes it clear that the appointment for which applications are invited are not regular appointments in the MCD and that these appointments being offered are a 'stop-gap' arrangement till WP(C) No.8576/2007 Page 1 of 4 these vacancies are filled through the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board in the normal course for which the necessary requisitions has already been sent. In terms of this advertisement, the essential qualifications, inter alia, required candidates to hold a diploma/ certificate in Nursery Teaching Training Education Programme of the duration of not less than two years. The age limit which is prescribed for the candidates is between 20 to 27 years. The petitioners being above 30 years of age are ineligible and, therefore, unable to apply. They have, therefore, challenged the prescription of age limit in the advertisement on the ground that the same is against existing recruitment regulations and natural justice. 2. It would appear that the facts and circumstances narrated by the petitioner in this case are similar to those in WP(C) No.8461/2007 titled Anju Goel Vs. MCD which has been decided by me on 21st February, 2008. There also, since the petitioner was more than 30 years old; he was aggrieved of a similar advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Nursery Teachers on contract issued by the MCD where age limit prescribed for candidates was between 20-27 years. He prayed that the respondents be directed to modify the age limit. That matter came to be dismissed by me on the basis of a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 11th January, 2008 in the case of Rajbala & Ors. Vs. MCD (WP(C) No.8417/2007) wherein a Division Bench of this Court had WP(C) No.8576/2007 Page 2 of 4 noticed the difference between the regular employment under the rules and the offer of contractual employment made by the advertisement dated 19th October, 2007, whereby it was proposed to engage Primary Teachers on a contractual basis as a stop gap arrangement till such time a regular employment based on the amended rules could be made. The Division Bench held that: “since it is only a stop gap arrangement and the persons appointed are not going to get right over the post, more so when it is done keeping in view the provisions of the NCTE Act, we are of the view that no interference with such a move is called for”. Here also, as already noted, the advertisement clearly mentions that, “the candidates so engaged on contract basis shall not claim for regular appointment in the MCD.” and that, “this is stop gap arrangement.” Counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that this is a matter which is now squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. 3. It is worth noting that apart from the above grounds of challenge in para 2 of the petition, although the petitioners have also stated that they belong to the reserved OBC and SC categories and are therefore entitled to get the age limit prescribed relaxed; this is not mentioned in any of the grounds appended to the petition nor is there any prayer to this effect. Even otherwise, in a purely contractual employment, the terms and conditions are governed by the offer, and if the offer WP(C) No.8576/2007 Page 3 of 4 fructifies into a contract, then by that contract. An applicant cannot demand terms which do not form part of the offer. In the absence of any statute compelling the same, he cannot approach the Courts to issue a mandamus to the employer to amend its offer, so as to include the applicant also in what is purely stop gap contractual arrangement. It is a trite law that Courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus unless the claimants can demonstrate the existence of a subsisting legal right. Since the recruitments envisaged under the offer in question are not in the nature of statutory recruitments, the terms and conditions in such a stop gap contractual employment are governed by the conditions offered, and the rights, if any, of the applicant would arise only from terms of the offer itself. This is also the ratio of the decision in Raj Bala's case (supra). The petitioners have not cited any precedent to the contrary. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. CM No.16174/2007 In view of the fact that the main writ petition has been disposed of today, interim orders granted earlier stand vacated and this application is also dismissed. Application is disposed of. Sudershan Kumar Misra, J February 27, 2008 skw WP(C) No.8576/2007 Page 4 of 4