Delhi High Court
Ram Parkash vs Union Of India And Others on 3 August, 2009
Author: Madan B. Lokur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.3120 of 2000
Judgment reserved on: July 20, 2009
% Judgment delivered on: August 03, 2009
Ram Parkash
Son of Shri Hans Raj
Resident of DDA (MIG) Flat No. 78-A
Rajouri Garden
New Delhi-110027. ...Petitioner
Through In person
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary
Department of Agricultural Research and Education
Ministry of Agriculture
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
Krishi Bhavan
New Delhi-110001.
2. Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Through the Secretary
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
Krishi Bhavan
New Delhi-110001.
3. Shri K.L. Bokolia
Dy. Secretary
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhavan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi.
WP (C) No.3120/2000 Page 1 of 7
4. Capt. R.K. Marwaha
Secretary
Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board
New Delhi.
5. Shri K.K. Bajpai
Dy. Secretary
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhavan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi.
6. Shri B.N. Pd. Pathak
Dy. Secretary
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhavan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi.
7. Shri N. Soman
Dy. Secretary
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhavan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi.
8. Shri M.R. Wadhwa
Dy. Director
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhavan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi.
9. Shri Chironji Lal
Controller of Examination
ASRB
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhavan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi.
WP (C) No.3120/2000 Page 2 of 7
10. Shri R.C. Gupta (Retd.)
Dy. Director
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhavan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi.
11. Shri Jagdish Mitter (Retd.)
Dy. Director
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhavan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi.
12. Shri Mela Singh Kaundal
Dy. Director
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhavan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi.
13. Shri Vidya Bhushan
Chief Administrative Officer
Indian Veterinary Research Institute
Izatnagar
Bareilly. ...Respondents
Through None
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Not necessary
WP (C) No.3120/2000 Page 3 of 7
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Not necessary
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 29th June, 1999
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in O.A. No.765/1993. He is also aggrieved by an order dated 18 th
November, 1999 dismissing his review application.
2. The reliefs claimed by the Petitioner in the Original
Application are as follows:
"(i) For quashing the Recruitment Rules for the post of
Deputy Director, Deputy Secretary, ICAR and
Controller of Examinations and Secretary, AGRB;
(ii) Quashing of appointments of respondents 3 to 13
made under the aforesaid Recruitment Rules;
(iii) Framing of fresh Recruitment Rules to the above
posts after including the post of Senior Analyst in the
consideration zone;
(iv) Making fresh selections in accordance with fresh
Recruitment Rules; and
(v) Adoption of replacement pay scale of Rs.700-1300
(pre-revised) in the case of Junior Analyst."
3. The Petitioner appeared in person and said that he is relying
on the written submissions filed by him and he requested us to go
through them and take a decision in the matter. We have gone through
his Written Submissions, Additional Written Submissions-I, Additional
Written Submissions-II and Additional Written Submissions-III.
4. The first issue raised by the Petitioner is that the recruitment
rules applicable to him are discriminatory and arbitrary. He has given
no reason why they are discriminatory and arbitrary apart from saying
that because of the recruitment rules he has not been given his due
promotions. Needless to say this is hardly a ground for quashing the
recruitment rules.
5. With regard to the second relief sought for by the Petitioner,
the Tribunal has noted that Respondents No.3 to 13 were appointed in
accordance with the recruitment rules between 1985 and 1992 while the
Original Application was filed in 1993. Clearly, the appointment of
many of these Respondents had taken place quite some time back and no
action was taken by the Petitioner to challenge their appointment. Even
in respect of those of the Respondents who were appointed in 1992, the
Petitioner sought to challenge their appointment after a gap of almost a
year. It has not been made clear how the appointments were illegal or
contrary to the rules. In any event since the appointments of most of the
Respondents were made quite some time back, it is not possible to set
them aside. The Tribunal has noted that the Petitioner was considered
for promotion but was found not suitable. The Petitioner, therefore,
cannot have any grievance in this regard.
6. As far as the third and fourth prayers are concerned, it is
clearly not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or this Court to frame
fresh recruitment rules and, therefore, these two prayers made by the
Petitioner cannot be granted.
7. With regard to the fifth prayer for adoption of the
replacement pay scale in the case of Junior Analyst, the Tribunal has
noted that the Petitioner had made this request some time in 1974 and
again in 1976 but his request was turned down. The original application
asking for the same relief was filed only in 1993 after a gap of more
than 15 years. Clearly, the relief prayed for cannot be granted being
barred by time.
8. There is no merit in the writ petition.
9. Dismissed.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
August 03, 2009 A.K. PATHAK, J
ncg
Certified that the corrected
copy of the judgment has
been transmitted in the main
Server.
