* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P(C) No.1071/2010
% Date of Decision: 22.02.2010
Om Prakash Verma .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
Versus
The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors .... Respondents
Through Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
* The petitioner has impugned the order dated 28th July, 2009 in O.A No.495/2008 titled Om Prakash Verma v. The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dismissing his petition seeking consideration for the post of JRO on regular basis.
The petitioner was temporarily attached with the reception organization for performing the duties of reception officer and after performing duties of reception officer for eight years he was relieved of his duties on 3rd April, 1995. He was again sent on deputation on 5th WP(C) 1071 of 2010 Page 1 of 4 April, 1995 and after completing deputation for three years he was repatriated to his parent cadre on 6th April, 1998.
In 1987, the recruitment rules for the post of reception officers were amended making sepoys of SSF having matriculation and eight years of service eligible for transfer on deputation/transfer to the post in the reception organization and consequently the petitioner made representations for absorption. However, he was not absorbed despite representations made in February, 1993 and 28th April, 1993 and was repatriated to his parent cadre in 1998. After repatriation in 1998 despite being eligible for absorption, petitioner did not challenge his repatriation and worked in the parent organization for few years. The petitioner had also filed an original application No.913/2006 seeking payment of salary for the post of JRO for the period 11th December, 1987 to 3rd April, 1995 on the ground that he had been performing the duties of the said post which O.A was allowed by order dated 30th November, 2006 pursuant thereto the pay and allowance attached to the post of JRO was released to the petitioner.
The petitioner thereafter applied for the post of JRO pursuant to advertisement on 21-27th May, 2005. Since the petitioner was not considered for the said post, in 2007 petitioner again sought absorption to the post of JRO. However, by that time the rules for the post of JRO had been again amended in the year 2000 and then in the year 2004. WP(C) 1071 of 2010 Page 2 of 4 Under the amended rules, after the petitioner applied in 2005, the petitioner became ineligible for the post of JRO. The petitioner, therefore, filed an original application and sought absorption on the ground that he had first applied in 1993 and, therefore, he should be appointed to the post of JRO in accordance with the rules of 1993 though he had applied later on in 2007 by which time the rules had been amended.
The Tribunal noted that in 1993 though the petitioner had made the representation but since he was not absorbed, the petitioner could not challenge his non absorption in 2007 according to the rules which were prevalent in 1993. It was held that in case the petitioner had grievance about non absorption in 1993 according to the rules prevalent at that time, he should have initiated the legal proceedings in accordance with law.
After failing to take any action for almost 14 years, in 2007 the petitioner cannot contend that he should have been appointed in accordance with the rules prevalent in 1993 and not the amended rules which were applicable in 2007. The Tribunal also noted that the petitioner had not worked in the reception organization after 1998 and, therefore, in 2007 he is not eligible and he cannot claim any right to be appointed to the post of JRO.
WP(C) 1071 of 2010 Page 3 of 4
The learned counsel has failed to disclose any cogent ground for consideration of the appointment of the petitioner in 2007 in accordance with the rules which were prevalent in 1993. In the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as no irregularity or such illegality has been pointed out which will entail interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
FEBRUARY 22, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'
WP(C) 1071 of 2010 Page 4 of 4