Rajiv Kumar vs State Of Delhi
1998 Latest Caselaw 26 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in MCD. The petitioner had earlier registered himself with the Employment Exchange vide Registration No.T 6700/90. The petitioner's name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Delhi for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in MCD, vide letter bearing No.F.13(244)/CED(II) 96-97-22488-591 dated 27.8.1997. It has since transpired that the recruitment of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in M.C.D. is being done through the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board. An advertisement to this effect appeared in Indian Express on 5.11.1997. The petitioner did not apply in pursuance to this advertisement.

2. I have heard Mr. H.M. Singh and Mr. Ranbir Yadav, Counsels for the petitioner in support of their contention that proper recruitment process through this advertisement has not been followed, resulting in denial of opportunity to deserving candidates. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the advertisement was published only in Indian Express (English edition) and Jansatta (Hindi edition). According to him, these newspapers do not have wide circulation in Delhi and there are other newspapers such as Hindustan Times, which has greater circulation. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to have published this advertisement in newspapers and through the medium of T.V. and Radio.

3. Apart from this, learned Counsel contends that there is an ambiguity in the advertisement inasmuch as the advertisement having published on 5.11.1996, gives the date of collection of application forms from the office of the Board on 1.12.1997 and the completed forms are also required to be submitted on or before 1.12.1997. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on 1996 (6) Scale; The Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., in support of the contention that the publication of the advertisement should be in papers having large circulation and even on Radio and T.V. etc. There could be no dispute with the proposition that the advertisement should be published as far as practicable in newspapers having wide circulation. However, the question to be considered is that the advertisement has been published in two well recognised newspapers though may not be having the highest circulation, would this be sufficient to declare the recruitment process as having been vitiated? The answer to this is obviously in the negative. Moreover, even in the judgment cited, the Apex Court has only emphasised on the desirability of wide circulation. As regards the petitioner's contention of there being ambiguity in the advertisement, the same is a Miss-regarding of it. Para 7 of the advertisement clearly makes it known that the application forms for advertisement are available at the office of the Board and can be so collected. The application forms were available from 6.11.1997 and could have been collected.

4. Another submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Municipal Corporation, to whom the name had been forwarded by the Employment Exchange should have itself considered the petitioner's case. Further, learned Counsel submits that it was obligatory on the part of the Recruiting Agency to obtain applications from the Employment Exchange. As regards the first submission, the advertisement itself recognises that all those who have earlier applied, or whose names have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange are required to submit fresh applications. Regarding the statutory obligation as contended by the learned Counsel, the same is also devoid of merit inasmuch as the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies Act, 1959) does not apply to recruitment in relation to vacancies that are to be filled through Union or State Public Service Commission and the like. The present case where recruitment is to be done through Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, would fall within the ambit of the above. Accordingly, there is no statutory obligation to obtain applications from Employment Exchange.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondents have already rejected about 48' applications, which were received late. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is without merit and the same is dismissed.