*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 5th May, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 2386/2011
% SH. LAL BABU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.M. Hussain, Adv.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner claims that he belongs to a Schedule Caste (SC); that he had in pursuance to an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Rigger in the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU); that in the list dated 26th June, 1991 published of the W.P.(C)2386/2009 Page 1 of 4 selected candidates, his name appeared at Serial No.4 in the SC/ST category; that appointments were to be made from the panel of selected candidates as and when vacancies to the said post by way of direct recruitment arise; that he was vide letter dated 20 th May, 1993 informed that there were no vacancies to the said post reserved for SC/ST category.
2. The petitioner did not take any steps thereafter and after 17 years, on 5th January, 2010 started making enquiries under the Right to Information Act.
3. The case of the petitioner is that it was misrepresented to him in the letter dated 28th May, 1993 (supra) of the DESU that there were no vacancies. It is contended that the petitioner has now learnt that there were vacancies in the Scheduled Caste Category even then but erstwhile DESU had been filling up the same with candidates from the General Category. It is further the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that as per the Office Memorandum dated 25 th April, 1989 of the Department of Personnel & Training of the Government of India, a copy whereof has been handed over in the Court, the posts meant for the Scheduled Caste W.P.(C)2386/2009 Page 2 of 4 candidates could not have been de-reserved. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents namely the Government of NCT of Delhi and the General Manager, DESU to give appointment to the petitioner to the post of Rigger or any other alternative appointment of the same status "in the present company".
4. It has at the outset been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to where the petitioner was for 17 long years and would he not be now overage for the appointment sought.
5. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been verbally representing and the question of his being overage would not arise since his appointment would date back to the date of selection.
6. DESU is no longer in existence since 1997 and its successor Delhi Vidyut Boart (DVB) has since the year 2002 been unbundled. The various functions being performed by DESU have since been transferred to several undertakings. The version of the petitioner of approaching the respondent DESU during the said 17 years cannot be accepted. As aforesaid, there is W.P.(C)2386/2009 Page 3 of 4 no DESU now for the last nearly 13 years and the question of the petitioner approaching any such office did not arise.
7. The long delay of 17 years is found to be fatal and enough to disentitle the petitioner from any relief. Moreover, mere selection does not confer any right of appointment as held in State of U.P. Vs. Rajkumar Sharma (2006) 3 SCC 330 and Divisional Forest Officer Vs. M. Ramalinga Reddy (2007) 9 SCC 286.
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 05, 2011 bs W.P.(C)2386/2009 Page 4 of 4