Bhoolay Ram Sharma & Others vs Government Of National Capital ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 2114 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                 WP(C) 2919/1999

%                                           Date of decision:21st April, 2010

        BHOOLAY RAM SHARMA & OTHERS               ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr. Pradeep K. Dubey, Advocate.


                                        Versus

        GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL
        TERRITORY OF DELHI AND OTHERS                 ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for R-2.
                               Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate for MCD.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.      Whether 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                   NO
        in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The eight petitioners are working as Malaria beldars in the Anti Malaria

Department of the MCD in Shahdara Zone. Their services were regularized

pursuant to the orders in the earlier writ petition filed by them. It is the case of the

petitioners that the next post in the channel of promotion in the case of the

petitioners is of Surveillance Workers/Basic Health Workers/Assistant Malaria

Inspectors and which is a non selection post and the mode of recruitment, as per

Recruitment Regulation w.e.f. 1974 was, 50% by direct appointment and 50% was

by promotion from categories of Anti Malaria/DDT Beldars & Jamadars with one

year experience in the case of matriculates and ten years experience in the case of

middle pass. However, the MCD vide Notification dated 12th August, 1985

changed the percentage of recruitment to the post of Surveillance Workers/Basic

Health Workers/Assistant Malaria Inspector from 50:50 as aforesaid earlier, to

95% for direct recruits and 5% for departmental candidates/promotees. The

scope/possibility of the departmental candidates/promotees to be posted as

Assistant Malaria Inspector was thus reduced drastically. The petitioners thus

filed this writ petition for quashing the Notification of 12th August, 1985 and for a

direction for restoration of the recruitment ratio of 50:50. Certain other directions

are also sought in the writ petition.

2. Rule was issued vide ex parte order dated 12th May, 1999 and the

respondents were also directed to keep eight posts of Assistant Malaria Inspectors

vacant until further orders. No counter affidavit was filed by either of the

respondents. It is noted in the order dated 26th April, 2001 that another similar

matter was also pending before this court. The interim order was made absolute on

29th November, 2001 and the matter adjourned thereafter from time to time. On

17th February, 2010 the counsel for the petitioners stated that the respondents were

considering change of recruitment rules to provide for promotion of beldars as

Assistant Malaria Inspectors and upon which happening, the grievance made in

this petition will be satisfied. It was also informed that in another writ petition for

the same relief, a direction in this regard had been issued and the Notification to

the said effect was expected shortly.

3. Today the counsels have informed that Recruitment Regulations to the post

of Assistant Malaria Inspector in MCD have been notified on 16th February, 2010.

A copy of the said Notification has been handed over in the court. The counsel for

the petitioners however states that notwithstanding the said Notification the

petitioners have not been promoted as yet. The counsel for the respondent MCD

states that she needs to seek instructions.

4. However, considering that the matter has been pending for long, it is not

deemed expedient to adjourn the same. The petitioners being satisfied with the

Recruitment Regulations now notified, the only thing which remains is their

promotion in accordance with the said Regulations and subject to their eligibility

in accordance with the said Regulations.

5. The respondent MCD is accordingly directed to, within three months of

today, consider the petitioners for promotion under the Recruitment Regulations

notified on 16th February, 2010. If the petitioners are eligible for promotion in

accordance with the said Recruitment Regulations, the respondent MCD to, within

the said three months, also promote the petitioners. However, if the respondent

MCD, after considering within the time aforesaid, does not promote the petitioners

and the petitioners are aggrieved from the decision to be taken by the respondent

MCD within three months, the petitioners shall be entitled to apply afresh.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. No order as to

costs. Copy of the order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 21st April, 2010 M