Delhi's Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena on Monday told the Supreme Court a total of 437 consultants, fellows and researchers were appointed by the Arvind Kejriwal government without following the reservation policy, and by revising selection criteria and rigging the process.
The L-G's office also claimed those appointed were ineligible and engaged in political activities for the ruling party.
"The approval of the Lt Governor was not taken, which was mandatory under the contemporaneous law; the selection process was fraught with favouritism and nepotism," an affidavit filed by the principal secretary to the L-G stated.
The response was filed to an application by the Delhi government seeking a stay on the July 5 decision by the L-G to terminate the services of 437 consultants, fellows and researchers.
The reply stated it cannot be gainsaid that in any form of public employment, the selection process must satisfy the mandates of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Simply possessing a qualification from a specific Institution or University or having worked with a specific person or agency would not entitle a person to claim public employment remunerated from the state exchequer.
"He/she is required to go through a fair and transparent process of selection according to the position required, which shall meet the constitutional requirements of reservation for Scheduled Castes and other classes, as flows out of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution read with relevant laws of the land, and be otherwise in accordance with law," it said.
Thus, the engagements made by those people are inherently unconstitutional and illegal, the response said, while adding that the remuneration was being paid out of consolidated funds from the state exchequer.
Raising the question of the maintainability of the plea, the response that it does not relate to the Ordinance at all. "Merely because the issue relating to the Ordinance is pending here. Such clever piggy-backing cannot be permitted by this court, such that it denudes the answering Respondent its right to even appeal," it said, adding the petitioner should have first approached the Delhi High Court in the matter.
"The insidious strategy of the petitioner is clear. There is no violation of any fundamental rights here. However, all that the petitioner is doing is taking consistent precipitative steps as a political agenda. Instead of bringing about cohesive administration in Delhi, the petitioner consistently approaches this court, attempting to call into question every attempt by the office of the Lieutenant Governor to engage in cooperative governance and serve the people of Delhi," it said.