Delhi High Court
Firoz Ahmed vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 15 December, 2005
Author: M Katju
Bench: M Katju, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 13.1.2004 in WP(C) No. 1260/2003.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not reproducing the same except where necessary.
4. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to fix the basic pay of the petitioner at Rs. 10,975/- with effect from the date of upgradation of pay of his junior, respondent Iqbal Singh and to grant the petitioner the consequential benefits in terms of his basic pay at Rs.10,975/-. Another prayer is to direct the respondent to fix the petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) above his juniors respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
5. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 12.8.1976 after obtaining a Diploma in Electrical Engineering in the year 1971.
6. It is alleged by the petitioner that for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer recruitment rules were framed by the Central Government vide notification dated 17.1.1977. A true copy of the rules is Annexure P.1 to the writ petition. Rule 24 provides for 50% appointments by selection on the basis of merit from among permanent Junior Engineers employed in Civil Engineering side of the Central Public Works Department, and 50% by selection from among Junior Engineers employed on the civil engineering side of the Central Public Works Department after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of a limited departmental competitive examination.
7. It is alleged by the petitioner that the above rules do not give power to the respondent to differentiate between the diploma and degree holders while considering them for promotion and the only criteria for the promotion of Junior Engineer which is to be adopted is seniority.
8. It is alleged in para 5 of the writ petition that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 who are junior to the petitioner were promoted as Assistant Engineer on officiating basis in December,1980, while the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in January,2000. In para 10 of the writ petition it is alleged that the pay of respondents 2 & 3 who are junior to the petitioner was upgraded and fixed at Rs. 10,975/-, while the petitioner's scale was fixed at Rs.10,000/- with effect from 12.8.2001. True copies of the said orders are Annexures P-6 and P-7 to the writ petition.
9. The petitioner alleged that he made a representation dated 9.4.2001 vide Annexure P-8 to the writ petitioner. That representation was rejected by order dated 23.9.1992 vide Annexure P-9 to the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition. That writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge. Hence, this appeal.
10. A counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA in the writ petition and we have perused the same. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the DDA is a statutory authority and has framed its own recruitment rules for recruitment and promotion. Hence, the promotion rules framed by the Central Public Works Department have no application to it. The recruitment rules of the DDA have already been upheld by the Supreme Court in Roop Chand Adlakha and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 116. It is not disputed that the DDA has not violated the said recruitment rules.
11. It is clear that the DDA has framed its own recruitment and promotion rules which have been upheld by the Supreme Court in Roop Chand Adlakha and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. (supra). These recruitment rules stipulate different qualifying service for degree holders and diploma holders among the Junior Engineers. The DDA has acted in accordance with these rules. The appellant was only a diploma holder and hence he cannot be placed in the same category as degree holder.
12. No doubt, respondents 2 & 3 were initially junior to the petitioner in the seniority list of the Junior Engineers, but having acquired a degree they were promoted much earlier than the petitioner out of their own quota and thus became senior to the petitioner.
13. In our opinion, there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
