Facts of the Case
The petitioner was an ad-hoc teacher. It is a general practice in the Respondent College to renew the term for 120 days after giving a break for one day between two terms. The petitioner’s term was to end on March 18, 2019. Before that, she applied for maternity leave on February 2, 2019. However, she received a communication from the college. It stated that Delhi University does not extend maternity leave to contractual workers. The college rejected her leave. Later, she reported to the college on May 24, 2019. After five days of her joining, she was informed that she is no longer on the rolls of the college and no work was assigned to her.
The decision of the college violates the basic principle of equity in the eyes of law. It deprives the petitioner of the protection ensured by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 ensures the right to employment and protection of her reproductive rights as a woman. It also goes against the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 and 16. The bench consisting of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Asha Menon directed the college to reinstate the Appellant Professor within one week. Furthermore, the court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondents. It was on account of giving arbitrary and unmerited reasons for the non-renewal of the term of the petitioner.