V.K. Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
2007 Latest Caselaw 1979 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. Although originally writ petitions were filed by two writ petitioners, however, only one of such writ petitioners , namely, Mr. V.K. Singh has filed this appeal against the impugned order and judgment dated 19th July, 2006.

2. The appellant herein, along with other persons, submitted applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer(Civil). Applications of the candidates were sorted out and thereafter they were called for interview in which a panel of 60 candidates was made. The name of the appellant did not figure in the said panel.

3. In 1991, number of candidates filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the selection process. Since the subject matter of the writ petitions was similar, the writ petitions were bunched together and disposed of by a common judgment. The aforesaid writ petitions were dismissed. Letters Patent Appeals were also filed. While the said Letters Patent Appeals were pending, the appellant filed a writ petition being WP(C) 4927/1997. When the LPAs were pending and during the course of hearing of the said Appeals, the High Court proceeded to appoint Mr. Justice G.C. Jain, retired Judge of this Court to verify case of each candidate and find out whether allocation of marks for qualification and experience had been correctly done and, if not, in what manner it should be done. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, Mr. Justice G.C. Jain (Retd.) examined the records and submitted his report making recommendation that some of the candidates who have approached the Court within a reasonable time and have obtained not less than 14.5 marks should be given appointment for the post of Assistant Engineer from the date they were entitled as per the original selection in 1989 without any monetary benefits between the date they became entitled to appointment and the date they actually got the appointment. The writ petitions of the appellant was, however, dismissed by order dated 12.5.1998 on the ground of delay and laches. A writ petition filed by another candidate Mr. N.C. Sharma being WP(C) No. 5087/1997 was also dismissed on the same ground.

4. As both the writ petitions were dismissed, the appellant along with Mr. N.C. Sharma filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. However, even after the dismissal of the writ petitions and confirmation of the said order by the Supreme Court, surprisingly Mr. N.C. Sharma was given an appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer under an appointment letter dated 12.2.1999 on the basis of the selection held in 1989. Making the said appointment a trump card, the appellant along with the other writ petitioners again filed a writ petition in the year 2002 contending, inter alia, that they should be given the same treatment as Mr. N.C. Sharma as the appellant as also other writ petitioners fulfill the eligibility criteria and were entitled to the post of Assistant Engineer. It was submitted that after the appointment of Mr. N.C. Sharma, the writ petitioners made a representation to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for their appointment as the respondent did not appoint the writ petitioners despite repeated representations. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The said writ petitions filed by the appellant were considered by the learned Single Judge. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the fact that there is again delay and laches and also on the ground that they have already been given suitable alternative appointment by the Delhi Jal Board, the writ petition was dismissed.

5. The aforesaid conclusions and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge have been challenged by the appellant alone by filing the present appeal on which we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

6. Ms. S. Janani, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that the case of the appellant is similar to that of Mr. N.C. Sharma and, therefore, there was no scope for any discrimination between the two similarly situated persons. According to her, if Mr. N.C. Sharma was given an appointment there is no reason why the appellant should not be given the said benefit from the said date as was given to Mr. N.C. Sharma. We are, however, not impressed with the submission of the counsel appearing for the appellant. The earlier writ petition which was filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the same was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Although subsequently, the respondent appointed Mr. N.C. Sharma but the same was given in the year 1999. The appellant even did not file the writ petition immediately and waited for three years thereafter. It is, therefore, established that the appellant slept over his rights and he was not acting with due diligence. The appellant also, in the meantime, has been appointed as an Assistant Engineer in Delhi Jal Board where he was working for the last so many years and is also getting benefits. Merely because the appellant might have a better avenue of promotion in the MCD, the same would not entitle him to be appointed in the services of the MCD as an Assistant Engineer on such a distant date giving him seniority and also promotion for all those years when he was sleeping over his rights, if any. Even the writ petition filed by Mr. N.C. Sharma was dismissed by the High Court which was also upheld by the Supreme Court. We are surprised that even thereafter an appointment was given to Mr. N.C. Sharma by the MCD. Except for making a statement that Mr. N.C. Sharma received 16 marks as against the Benchmark of 15', there is nothing on record to show the consideration for which Mr. N.C. Sharma was given the said benefit. Merely because a benefit is given to a person although the writ petition was dismissed which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the same would not entitle the appellant to claim for similar benefit which appears to us to be a stale claim. Mr. N.C. Sharma was also appointed in the year 1999. There were several other writ petitions which were filed after Mr. N.C. Sharma was given appointment. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge shows that such writ petitions were also dismissed as they had slept over their claims.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.' There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.