Delhi High Court
Dda vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. on 29 May, 2009
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.6829/2009
Reserved on: 18th May, 2009.
% Pronounced on: 29th May, 2009.
DDA ........Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate
VERSUS
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. ..........Respondents
Through: Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate
CORAM:-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in
the Digest? YES
WPC 6829/2009 Page 1 of 7
V.K.Jain, J.
1. Prior to 01/01/1979, there were two cadres of the
stenographers in DDA, viz. Junior Stenographers and
Senior Stenographers. The two cadres were merged and
a unified cadre came into being w.e.f. 01/01/1979.
However, on the recommendations of a committee set up
by DDA, it was decided that the cadre of stenographers
be again bifurcated and those who were recruited up to
year 1982 may be placed in the cadre of senior
stenographer whereas those who were recruited after
1982 to be initially placed in the cadre of junior
stenographer and after three years in the cadre of senior
stenographers. It was also decided that initial
recruitment shall be at the speed of 100 wpm in
shorthand and 40 wpm in typing as prescribed by
Government of India.
2. In October 1986 DDA advertised for recruitment of
stenographers, having speed of 100 wpm in shorthand
and 40 wpm in typing. 70 posts of stenographers were
reserved for SC/ST candidates. However, only 9 SC/ST
candidates qualified the test and the respondents herein
were not able to qualify. In July 1987, DDA decided to
give opportunity to SC/ST candidates, who had not
qualified in the test held in February/March, 1987 to
take the test at the speed of 80 wpm in shorthand and 40
wpm in typing. The respondents qualified the test at the
reduce speed and were appointed on 27/11/87.
3. On 19/12/1991, DDA decided that senior scale
shall not be granted to the stenographer recruited after
31/12/1986. This decision of DDA was challenged
before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 2518/1992 titled as
Gulzari Lal Verma V.s DDA and WP(C) 2216/1992 titled
as Ghanshyam Das and Ors. V.s DDA.
4. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition,
DDA issued E.O. No. 2677 dated 2nd September, 1994,
deciding therein that senior scale would be given to all
stenographers after completion of three years service
subject to the condition that they had qualified test at the
speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing. It
was further decided that those SC/ST candidate who had
not cleared the test will have to clear the test first. A test
for SC/ST candidate was accordingly held, which was
cleared by the respondents on 25/03/1995. They were
placed in senior scale with notional fixation from the date
of completing three years of service. However, vide E.O.
No. 4149 dated 26/12/1995, DDA decided to place the
respondents in the senior scale from the date on which
they had qualified the test. The decision of DDA granting
senior scale w.e.f. the date of passing the test at the
speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40wpm in tying was
challenged by the respondents by filing a writ petition,
which was later on transferred to Central Administrative
Tribunal. The writ petition was numbered as T.A. no.
77/07 and was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order
dated 21/05/08. The Tribunal held that applicants, who
belong to SC/ST could not be deprived of the treatment
which was meted out to general category employees and
accordingly directly petitioner herein to accord senior
scale to them, from the date they completed three years
as stenographers.
5. The thrust of arguments of the respondent is that
since the general category candidates, who were
petitioners in WP(C) no. 2451/1991 were granted senior
scale from the date of appointment, they should also be
placed in the senior scale from the date of their respective
appointment or at least from the date they completed
three years of service.
6. It is not in dispute that petitioners in WPC 2518/91
had passed test at the speed of 100 wpm in shorthand
and 40 wpm in typing at the time of their recruitment,
whereas the respondents passed that test only on
25/03/1995. It is also not in dispute that the speed
prescribed by DDA for the stenographers is 100 wpm in
shorthand and 40 wpm in typing and it was only by way
of a concession for SC/ST candidates that DDA
conducted test at the speed of 80 wpm in shorthand and
40 wpm in typing. It is also not in dispute that those
who were placed in the senior scale on completion of
three years qualifying service had already passed test at
the speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in
typing. This is not the case of the respondents that DDA
has given senior scale to any other stenographer from a
date prior to him qualifying in the test held at the speed
of 100 wpm in shorthand. Since the respondent had not
passed test at the prescribed speed of 100 wpm in
shorthand and 40 wpm in typing either at the time of
their appointment or at any time prior to 25/03/1995,
they cannot be placed in senior scale prior to the date on
which they cleared the test at the prescribed speed. DDA
did not discriminate with the respondents in any manner
by not giving them senior scale from a date prior to their
passing test at the prescribed speed of 100 wpm in
shorthand and 40 wpm in typing. Prior to passing test at
the speed of 100 wpm in shorthand and 40 wpm in
typing, they were not situated similarly to those who had
already passed the test at that speed. Equal treatment
can be claimed only by those who are similarly situated
and not by those who are less proficient as compared to
those with whom they want parity. One concession was
given to the respondents by DDA, by recruiting them on
passing test at the speed of 80 wpm in shorthand as
against prescribed speed of 100 wpm and 40 wpm in
typing. They are not entitled to another favourable
treatment by placing them in senior scale when before
their passing the test at the prescribed speed of 100 wpm
in shorthand and 40 wpm in typing.
7. For the reasons given above, we are of the view that
no discriminatory treatment was meted out to the
respondents and, therefore, the order passed by the
Tribunal cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside
the order dated 21.05.08 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
(V.K. JAIN)
JUDGE
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
May 29, 2009.
mr
