Virender Singh And Ors. vs Municipal Corp. Of Delhi And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1129 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. Heard.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 17.1.2006 rejecting the claim of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 for re-engagement in their services and further to direct respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for extension of the benefit of the judgment dated 7.1.2002 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6244/2000 and to re-engage the petitioners like the similarly situated persons.

3. It appears from an uncertified copy of the document placed on the record that Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6244/2000 was disposed of on a settlement between the petitioners therein and the respondent-MCD. The petitioners herein were not the parties to the settlement or the compromise. The petitioners subsequently filed the writ petition seeking to be similarly considered. This was Writ Petition(C) No. 6815-17/2004. The same was dismissed by this Court on 5.5.2004. There was a writ appeal over this order which was Writ Appeal No. 782/2004. The same was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.9.2004.

4. The petitioner is now seeking the same relief all over again. The plea taken for repeating the prayer is that after dismissing the appeal the Division Bench asked the respondent authority to consider and decide some representation of the petitioners. This does not mean that the order of dismissal of the appeal is set at naught. The relief has been squarely declined in the earlier writ petition and in the writ appeal. The same relief cannot be claimed again in this writ petition and to this extent the writ petition is incompetent.

5. Further there is no proof that the petitioners are situated similarly to the writ petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6244/2000. The reason for declining to re-engage the petitioners, as stated in the reply to the representation made by the petitioners, is that the competent authority had taken a serious note of the matter that these three petitioners had procured the employment with the respondent corporation as Group D employees on the basis of forged engagement letters. There is nothing on record to show that other employees who had been re-engaged were guilty of similar misconduct. Therefore, even on merit the petitioners have no case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.