K.P. Rawat vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ...
1998 Latest Caselaw 532 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. In the writ petition the writ petitioner had claimed the seniority over respondents 2 to 4. By order dated the 15th of January, 1992, the name of the second respondent was deleted from the array of parties and amended memo of parties was filed on the 29th of February, 1992. Now, the claim of the petitioner was confined as against Shri Yad Ram Singh and Shri Deo Pal Singh.

2. I heard the learned Counsel for the parties for a considerable length of time, and in particular, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued the matter at length. I had perused the writ petition and the counter-affidavit filed by the MCD.

3. The petitioner stated that there was seniority list published in 1986 wherein he was shown above respondents 2 and 3. Subsequently, on the 26th of November, 1985 that had been changed and he was brought down below to respondents 2 & 3.

4. The answer by the MCD is that the seniority list published in January,1982 was purely tentative and no norms were followed and after giving opportunities to the parties and taking into account the relevant criteria, the seniority list was prepared and published on the 26th of November, 1985.

5. Ms. Madhu Tewatia, the learned Counsel for the first respondent, submitted the first respondent had explained the facts in the counter-affidavit. The learned Counsel for the first respondent referred to paragraphs 5 & 6. The same are as under:

"5. From perusal of the above submissions, the position with regard to Shri K.P. Rawat - the petitioner viz-a-viz S/Shri Magan Singh, Yad Ram Singh, Deo Pal Singh who are respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 respective is as under:

     (i) Shri K.P. Rawat (the petitioner) was appointed to the post of      Asstt. Director (Horticulture) under departmental quota. 
 

     (ii)  Shri Magan Singh (respondent No.2) was initially  appointed      under  direct quota and subsequently seniority benefit was  given      under departmental quota as per recommendations of the DPC. 
 

     (iii) Shri Yad Ram Singh (respondent No. 3) was given appointment      under departmental quota. 
 

     (iv)  Shri Deo Pal Singh (respondent No.4) was given  appointment      under direct quota." 
 

     6.   As  already  stated hereinabove, in the writ  petition,  the      petitioner  has interalia challenged and prayed for quashing  the      seniority list No. 4520/CES(A)/ HC(T)/85 dated 25.4.85, seniority      list  No.  21142-391/CES(A)/HC(T)/85  dated  14.10.1985  and  No. 
     25163-25262/CES(A)/HC(T)/85  dated 26.11.85 which  are  Annexures      III, IV & V to the writ petition. The petitioner has also  prayed      for  restoration of seniority list No. 850/CES(A)/HC(T)/82  dated      21.1.82  which  is  at Annexure I to the writ  petition.  In  the 
     aforesaid  seniority lists, the position of Shri  K.P.Rawat,  the      petitioner viz-a-viz S/Shri Magan Singh, Shri Yad Ram Singh & Deo      Pal  Singh  who are respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 respectively  is  as      under: 
      
      S.   Name           Provisio- Provisio- Provisio- Final
   No.                 nal       nal       nal       seniority
                       seniority seniority  seniority  list dt.
                        list dt.  list dt.   list dt.  26.11.85
                        21.1.82   25.4.85    14.10.85  (Ann.-V)
                        (Ann.-I)  (Ann-III)  (Ann.lV)
     1.   Sh. K.P. Rawat      8         12        10        10
          (The Petitioner)
     2.   Sh. Magan Singh     10        8         6         6
          (Respondent No. 2)
     3.   Sh. Yad Ram Singh   13        10        8         8
          (Respondent No. 3)
     4.   Sh. Deo Pal Singh   9         11        9         9
          (Respondent No. 4)
 

4. With regard to the various seniority lists of Asstt. Director of Horticulture, it is stated that a provisional seniority list bearing No: 850/CES(A)/HC(T)/ 82 dated 21.1.82 (Annexure I to the writ petition) and seniority list No. 4520/ CES(A)/HC(T)/85 dated 25.4.85 (Annexure III to the writ petition) were issued inviting objections, and as such, the same were not final and were subject to correction. After the selection made to the post of Asstt. Director (Horticulture) under departmental quota as well as under direct quota, various representations were received and thereafter the matter was referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking certain clarifications vide letter No. 5652/CES(A)/HC(T)/85 dated 24.5.85, a copy of the said letter dated 24.5.85 is annexed as Annexure R-12. The Ministry of Personnel & Training, Administrative Reforms, Public Grievance & Pen (Deptt. of Personnel and Training) vide letter No. 1718/85-Estt.(D) dated 31st May, 1985 gave certain clarifications. A copy of the letter dated 31st May,1985 is annexed as Annexure R-13. Thereafter, in view of the said clarifications, a revised provisional seniority list was prepared and circulated bearing No. 21142-391/CES(A)/HC(T)/85 dated 14.10.85 which is Annexure IV to the writ petition. By the said provisional seniority list, objections were invited. Thereafter, after considering the objections filed by the Asstt. Director of Horticulture, in continuation of previous final seniority list of Asstt. Superintendent (Garden) (now Asstt. Director of Horticulture) was issued vide No. 1 /CES;(A) dated 14.1.1974, a final seniority list bearing No. 25163-25262/CES(A)/HC(T)/85 dated 26.11.85 was issued which is Annexure V to the writ petition (the date is 26.11.85 and not 26.11.65 as mentioned in the Annexure). Since the above said final seniority list dated 26.11.85 was issued on the basis of the advice given by the Ministry of Personnel & Training, therefore, the same is not liable to be challenged."

6. The learned Counsel for the first respondent, Ms. Madhu Tewatia, submitted that the petitioner has not shown any illegality or impropriety or irregularity in the preparation of the seniority list in November, 1985 and the petitioner was content with relying upon the tentative seniority list published in January,1982. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not explained the position properly as to why and as to how they could change the seniority list published in January,1982 and that ground alone is sufficient to nullify the seniority list published on the 26th of November, 1985.

7. In the writ petition, no material point has been referred to as to how the seniority list published on the 26th of November, 1985 could be said to be not in accordance with law. There is absolutely no substance in the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

8. There shall be no orders as to costs.