Lalta Prasad Yadav vs University Of Delhi & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 5043 Del

                                                     UNREPORTABLE

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                        W.P. (C) No.8197/2005

                              Date of Decision: December 07, 2009


       LALTA PRASAD YADAV                 ..... Petitioner
                     Through Mr. J.M.Bari, Advocate with
                     Mr. K.S.Kadam, Advocate

                        versus

       UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS         ..... Respondents
                     Through Mr. Anurag D. Mathur with
                     Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate for respondent
                     No.1.
                     Mr. APS Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent
                     No.2.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

The grievance of the petitioner is that he was denied promotion

to the post of „Semi Professional Assistant‟ in the selection held on

March 15, 2002 on the ground that he was neither a diploma holder,

nor possessed a certificate in „Library Science‟ which is an essential

qualification for promotion, while respondent No.4 Shri R.D.Mishra

who too did not possess either a diploma or a certificate in „Library

Science‟ was promoted to the post in question. The petitioner came to

be promoted only in November, 2007 after he had obtained a

certificate in Library Science.

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has drawn my

attention to an order dated March 16, 2004 passed in an earlier

writ-petition filed by the petitioner in which he had made a similar

grievance. One of the pleas taken in that writ-petition was that it was

not essential to possess either a diploma or a certificate in Library

Science for promotion to the post of „Semi Professional Assistant‟.

The plea so raised was not accepted and the writ-petition was

consequently dismissed. Aggrieved by the order dated

March 16, 2004, the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal and

therein he took an additional plea that one Shri R.D.Mishra was

promoted in relaxation of the „Rules‟ even though he too did not

possess either a diploma or a certificate in Library Science. The said

submission was disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. The

Division Bench after noticing the rival submissions passed an order

dated February 18, 2005 holding that, "from the perusal of the

record, we find that no such prayer was made in the appeal by

the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be

faulted. Counsel for the appellant says that she wishes to

withdraw this L.P.A. with liberty to file appropriate

proceedings. Liberty granted. Dismissed as withdrawn."

In view of the aforesaid order passed on February 18, 2005

granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings, the

present writ-petition has been filed specifically alleging that

Shri R.D.Mishra was promoted as Semi Professional Assistant in

relaxation of the „Rules‟ and consequently praying that in parity with

the case of Shri R.D.Mishra, the petitioner be promoted from the

same date. It is further alleged that respondent No.3 Shri Jagdish

Prasad Pandey though junior to the petitioner was also promoted

overlooking his claim to the post.

It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that in so

far as respondent No.4 Shri R.D.Mishra is concerned, he was working

as Library Attendant much prior to December 31, 1972 and that the

qualification of a diploma or a certificate in Library Science was not

needed in the case of those Library Attendants who were in the

employment of the College prior to December 31, 1972. According to

the counsel, in the case of all such persons, it was sufficient if they

were having either the qualification of Matric/Higher Secondary and

Certificate in library science plus four years library experience or,

Graduate with two years library experience or, Matric/Higher

Secondary plus five years library experience. It is stated that

Shri R.D.Mishra was a graduate with two years library experience and

it was for that reason that he was promoted to the post of Semi

Professional Assistant. In any case, it is further stated that

Shri R.D.Mishra has since retired from service and, therefore,

whether he possessed or did not possess the requisite qualification is

not of any consequence, in so far as the present writ-petition is

concerned.

As regards respondent No.3 Shri Jagdish Prasad Pandey, the

learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the mere fact that

he was junior to the petitioner is no ground to find fault with his

selection. The said Shri Jagdish Prasad Pandey, it is stated, not only

possessed the requisite qualification but was otherwise also found fit

for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee that met in

March, 2002.

The relevant „Rule‟, on which reliance has been placed by

learned counsel for respondent No.2, is annexed as Annexure R-2 to

the counter-affidavit. It lays down a degree in Arts/Science or

Commerce and diploma/certificate in „Library Science‟ as an essential

qualification for recruitment to the post of „Semi Professional

Assistant‟. The stand of learned counsel for the respondent that

Shri R.D.Mishra was promoted because the „Rule‟ exempted those

persons who were in service of the College prior to and as on

December 31, 1972 from the requirement of having a diploma or a

certificate in Library Science, is not borne out from the „Rule‟. The

exemption was applicable only for the purpose of granting revised

pay-scale and did not enure for the benefit of promotion. However, as

Shri R.D.Mishra has since retired from service, I do not propose to go

into the question whether he was rightly or wrongly promoted to the

post. In view of the „Rule‟ position which lays down diploma or a

certificate in Library Science as an essential qualification and as

admittedly, the petitioner did not possess that qualification in

March, 2002 he cannot claim promotion from that date. He also

cannot claim parity with Shri R.D.Mishra, assuming he was promoted

in relaxation of the Rules, the reason being that one wrong will not

make another right. As regards Shri Jagdish Prasad Pandey, learned

counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that he possessed the

requisite qualification. No other point was urged.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ-petition has no merit and is

dismissed as such.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

DECEMBER 07, 2009 PC/ka