Delhi High Court
Shri Chunni Lal vs University Of Delhi & Ors on 1 July, 2009
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.4023/1999
Dated: 01.07.2009
SHRI CHUNNI LAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S.Rupal and
Ms. Jiny M. Abraham,Advocates for
respondent No.1.
Mr. S.K.Luthra,Advocate for
respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers 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?
J U D G M E N T (Oral)
%
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J
1 The petitioner was appointed as a peon on 16.5.75 and promoted as a
Lab Attendant in the Department of Physics in Ramjas College on
W.P.(C) 4023/1999
12.10.1976. He was further promoted as Senior Lab Assistant (new
designation Lab Assistant) on 27.02.1980. In the Department of Physics, a
post of a Technical Assistant was created in the year 1991. A meeting of the
Departmental Promotion Committee ( hereafter D.P.C) was held on 7.9.1991
in which one Mr. S.C.Jha was appointed by selection. Other candidates for
this post besides the petitioner included one Mr. Bhim Sen, respondent No.3.
The promotion of Mr. S.C.Jha could not come through and he could not take
charge of the post in view of certain interim orders passed in a writ petition
filed in this court and subsequently, the said Mr. S.C.Jha unfortunately
expired. The post, therefore, of Technical Assistant in the Physics
Department of the Ramjas College/respondent No.2 remained unfilled and a
fresh D.P.C was therefore called for filling up the said post again for the first
time. Fresh D.P.C meeting was held on 19.12.1996 in which the case of the
petitioner was also considered for the selection post of a Technical Assistant.
The D.P.C on consideration, decided to grant promotion to the respondent
No.3. The petitioner appeared before the D.P.C, but as stated above, the
D.P.C. thought it fit to recommend respondent No.3 for promotion. The
petitioner was informed that respondent No.3 took charge on 20.11.1997.
No interim orders were passed in this case.
W.P.(C) 4023/1999
2. The contention of Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, counsel for the petitioner is
that there are various posts of Technical Assistants in separate
disciplines/subjects of Chemistry, Physics and Botany etc. and there should
be consequently grouping of all the posts of Technical Assistants in the
separate subjects/disciplines and on so grouping, it would be come possible
to apply the reservation policy for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.
According to Mr Aggarwal this was bound to be done as so stated in the
Government of India OM No. 8/1/74 dated 20.12.1974 which has been filed
by the petitioner as Annexure „Z,‟ page 58 to the writ petition. Para 5.1 of
the said O.M being relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is
reproduced hereunder:
"In the case of posts filled by direct recruitment,
isolated individual posts and small cadres may be grouped
with posts in the same class for purpose of reservation orders
taking into account the status, salary and qualification
prescribed for the posts in question. A cadre or a grade or a
grade or a division of service consisting of less than 20 posts
may be treated as a small cadre for this purpose. A group so
formed should not ordinarily consist of less than 25 posts. It
is not intended that isolated posts, should be grouped
together only with other isolated posts. Subject to the other
conditions for grouping, there is no objection to the grouping
of any isolated posts with a cadre, grade or division of service
consisting of more than 20 posts and already comprising a
group by itself. Reservation for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes would be made according to the group,
subject to the condition mentioned in para 5.5 below."
(Emphasis added)
W.P.(C) 4023/1999
3. Mr. Aggarwal relying on para 5.1 above has contended that grouping
is permissible with respect to the different posts of Technical Assistants in
the different disciplines/subjects. I am unable to agree. The said para 5.1
firstly, deals with grouping of posts by direct recruitment and admittedly in
the present case, the post to which promotion is sought for by the petitioner
is by promotion and not by direct recruitment. Secondly, it is specifically
stated in the aforesaid para 5.1 that " it is not intended that isolated posts,
should be grouped together only with other isolated posts." Therefore, once
separate disciplines/subjects have been treated as separate cadre/isolated
posts by the University of Delhi with respect to different disciplines in all its
colleges and which has been consistently followed, there is no reason why
the posts of Technical Assistant in the separate cadres/subjects/disciplines
should be grouped together so as to form one cadre. Mr. Luthra, counsel for
the respondent has drawn my attention to the clarification given by the
University of Delhi dated 11.11.1997 filed as Annexure R-2 to the response
of respondent No.2 wherein it is clarified that the issue with respect to
grouping will only apply with respect to the posts of direct recruitment.
4. Since there is only one post of a Technical Assistant with respect to
the separate subjects/disciplines the law laid down in the case of Dr.
Chakradhar Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1988 SC 959 and
W.P.(C) 4023/1999
which was followed in the case of Bhide Girls Education Society Vs.
Education Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagpur & Others 1993 Supp (3) SCC
527 applies and which is that if there is only one post there is no question of
reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.
4. In view of the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the writ
petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, but, without any orders as
to costs.
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J
July 01, 2009
ib
W.P.(C) 4023/1999
