Shri Nihal Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
2008 Latest Caselaw 1043 Del

                                                           REPORTABLE

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Decision : July 16, 2008


+     WP(C) No.2776/1999

#     SHRI NIHAL SINGH                 ...   Petitioner.

!                                Mr. Ravi Gupta, Advocate
                      Versus

$     MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
      DELHI                            ...   Respondent

^                                Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate.


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

    1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the
       judgment?
    2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
    3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

S.N. Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

1 The petitioner Shri Nihal Singh has filed this writ petition

seeking Mandamus to the respondent to disclose the result of the

application submitted by him for his appointment to the post of

Primary Teacher in the General Category. The petitioner has also

prayed for a Mandamus directing the respondent Corporation to

appoint him as a Primary Teacher with the schools run by the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

2 Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent in

response to notice of this writ petition. Ms. Saroj Bidawat, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent says that the

petitioner was not considered for his appointment to the post of

Primary Teacher because he was not eligible for his appointment to

the said post in terms of the recruitment rules mentioned in the

advertisement issued for inviting the applications from eligible

candidates.

3 The respondent had invited applications to fill up the

vacant posts of Primary Teachers in the Municipal Corporation of

Delhi sometime in July, 1996. The applications were invited from

the persons between 18-30 years of age. The age was relaxable by

three years in case of OBC candidates. The petitioner who applied

for his consideration for appointment to one of the posts of Primary

Teacher in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi belongs to OBC

category. He was more than 36 years old on the date he made

application for his appointment as Primary Teacher in the school of

the respondent, his date of birth mentioned in the application being

02nd July, 1960. He was, therefore, found over age and was

therefore not considered for his appointment to the post of Primary

Teacher.

4 According to the petitioner the age for eligibility was

further relaxable by number of years a candidate had the teaching

experience subject to maximum of 45 years. Mr. Ravi Gupta,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has

contended that on the date the petitioner had applied for the post

of Primary Teacher in the school of respondent on 22nd July, 1996,

he was already working as PGT (Biology) in Seth Bhagwan Dass Sr.

Sec. Public School w.e.f. 01st July, 1996 and according to the learned

counsel, the petitioner prior to that also had worked in other schools

also. Mr. Gupta has contended that the petitioner had filed the

experience certificates along with his application which he made to

the respondent for his appointment to the respondent. The

contention of Mr. Gupta is that in case the experience of the

petitioner had been taken into account by the respondent, then the

petitioner would have been found within the age limit for his

consideration for the post of Primary Teacher in the school of the

respondent.

5 Ms. Saroj Bidawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent says that the petitioner did not annex any

document or the experience certificate along with his application

which he made to the respondent for his appointment on 22nd July,

1996. The contention of Ms. Saroj Bidawat is that all those

documents on which reliance is placed by the petitioner were

obtained by the respondent after filing of the present writ petition

pursuant to some directions given by this court to verify whether

the petitioner had past experience or not.

6 In order to examine the respective contentions of the

counsel for the parties, the court has seen the original record which

has been produced before me. The original record contains the

application dated 22nd July, 1996 which the petitioner has made to

the respondent for his appointment to the post of Primary Teacher.

Column-8(b) of the said application deals with the present post held,

if any (with office address). The said column-8(b) has been

answered by the petitioner by putting a mark "X". In case on the

date the petitioner made his application for his appointment to the

post of Primary Teacher, he was already working as a teacher

elsewhere then he would have given the details of his previous

employment and was not expected to have put "X" mark against

the column-8(b). Since the petitioner had put the "X" mark against

Column-8(b) of his application, the respondent cannot be expected

to assume that he had some past experience for giving him the

benefit of relaxation of age on the basis of his alleged past

experience. Any document relating to past service procured by the

respondent after the filing of the present writ petition is of no

consequence. It may be noted that at the bottom of the application

which the petitioner had made to the respondent on 22 nd July, 1996,

it is mentioned that in case any information given by the petitioner

therein was found to be wrong, the appointment of the petitioner

was liable to be cancelled without any further reference. In case the

petitioner is to be believed that he was working as a teacher on the

date he had applied for his appointment in the school of the

respondent, then the only inference that can be drawn on the basis

of answer given by the petitioner to column-8(b) is that he had

given deliberate false information with regard to his past

employment and for that reason also he is not entitled to any

discretionary relief from this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

7 Furthermore, the petitioner in the present writ petition

has only prayed for directions to the respondent to declare the

result of his application which he made to the respondent for his

appointment. The respondent in response to notice of the writ

petition has filed the counter affidavit in which it has disclosed that

the petitioner could not be considered for his appointment to the

post of Primary Teacher as he was over age at the time of his

consideration and in view of the same the prayer made in regard to

the directions to the respondent to declare the result of the

application stands complied with and no further directions need to

be passed with regard to the said prayer. Since the petitioner was

over age on the date he applied for his appointment to the post of

Primary Teacher in the school of the respondent, Mandamus for his

appointment cannot be issued by this court.

8 In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ

petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the

circumstances with no order as to costs.

July 16, 2008                                      S.N.AGGARWAL
'nks'                                                 [JUDGE]