* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.6829/2009
Reserved on: 18th May, 2009.
% Pronounced on: 29th May, 2009.
DDA ........Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate
VERSUS
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. ..........Respondents
Through: Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate
CORAM:-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in
the Digest? YES
WPC 6829/2009 Page 1 of 7
V.K.Jain, J.
1. Prior to 01/01/1979, there were two cadres of the stenographers in DDA, viz. Junior Stenographers and Senior Stenographers. The two cadres were merged and a unified cadre came into being w.e.f. 01/01/1979. However, on the recommendations of a committee set up by DDA, it was decided that the cadre of stenographers be again bifurcated and those who were recruited up to year 1982 may be placed in the cadre of senior stenographer whereas those who were recruited after 1982 to be initially placed in the cadre of junior stenographer and after three years in the cadre of senior stenographers. It was also decided that initial recruitment shall be at the speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing as prescribed by Government of India.
2. In October 1986 DDA advertised for recruitment of stenographers, having speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing. 70 posts of stenographers were WPC 6829/2009 Page 2 of 7 reserved for SC/ST candidates. However, only 9 SC/ST candidates qualified the test and the respondents herein were not able to qualify. In July 1987, DDA decided to give opportunity to SC/ST candidates, who had not qualified in the test held in February/March, 1987 to take the test at the speed of 80 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing. The respondents qualified the test at the reduce speed and were appointed on 27/11/87.
3. On 19/12/1991, DDA decided that senior scale shall not be granted to the stenographer recruited after 31/12/1986. This decision of DDA was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 2518/1992 titled as Gulzari Lal Verma V.s DDA and WP(C) 2216/1992 titled as Ghanshyam Das and Ors. V.s DDA.
4. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, DDA issued E.O. No. 2677 dated 2nd September, 1994, deciding therein that senior scale would be given to all stenographers after completion of three years service subject to the condition that they had qualified test at the speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing. It was further decided that those SC/ST candidate who had WPC 6829/2009 Page 3 of 7 not cleared the test will have to clear the test first. A test for SC/ST candidate was accordingly held, which was cleared by the respondents on 25/03/1995. They were placed in senior scale with notional fixation from the date of completing three years of service. However, vide E.O. No. 4149 dated 26/12/1995, DDA decided to place the respondents in the senior scale from the date on which they had qualified the test. The decision of DDA granting senior scale w.e.f. the date of passing the test at the speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40wpm in tying was challenged by the respondents by filing a writ petition, which was later on transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal. The writ petition was numbered as T.A. no. 77/07 and was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 21/05/08. The Tribunal held that applicants, who belong to SC/ST could not be deprived of the treatment which was meted out to general category employees and accordingly directly petitioner herein to accord senior scale to them, from the date they completed three years as stenographers.
WPC 6829/2009 Page 4 of 7
5. The thrust of arguments of the respondent is that since the general category candidates, who were petitioners in WP(C) no. 2451/1991 were granted senior scale from the date of appointment, they should also be placed in the senior scale from the date of their respective appointment or at least from the date they completed three years of service.
6. It is not in dispute that petitioners in WPC 2518/91 had passed test at the speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing at the time of their recruitment, whereas the respondents passed that test only on 25/03/1995. It is also not in dispute that the speed prescribed by DDA for the stenographers is 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing and it was only by way of a concession for SC/ST candidates that DDA conducted test at the speed of 80 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing. It is also not in dispute that those who were placed in the senior scale on completion of three years qualifying service had already passed test at the speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing. This is not the case of the respondents that DDA WPC 6829/2009 Page 5 of 7 has given senior scale to any other stenographer from a date prior to him qualifying in the test held at the speed of 100 wpm in shorthand. Since the respondent had not passed test at the prescribed speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing either at the time of their appointment or at any time prior to 25/03/1995, they cannot be placed in senior scale prior to the date on which they cleared the test at the prescribed speed. DDA did not discriminate with the respondents in any manner by not giving them senior scale from a date prior to their passing test at the prescribed speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing. Prior to passing test at the speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing, they were not situated similarly to those who had already passed the test at that speed. Equal treatment can be claimed only by those who are similarly situated and not by those who are less proficient as compared to those with whom they want parity. One concession was given to the respondents by DDA, by recruiting them on passing test at the speed of 80 wpm in shorthand as against prescribed speed of 100 wpm and 40 wpm in WPC 6829/2009 Page 6 of 7 typing. They are not entitled to another favourable treatment by placing them in senior scale when before their passing the test at the prescribed speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing.
7. For the reasons given above, we are of the view that no discriminatory treatment was meted out to the respondents and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 21.05.08 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE May 29, 2009.
mr WPC 6829/2009 Page 7 of 7