Delhi High Court
Ram Kumar Singh & Anr. vs Delhi Jal Board & Ors. on 22 April, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.2371/2010
%
Date of Decision: 22.04.2010
Ram Kumar Singh & Anr. .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Gulab Chandra, Advocate
Versus
Delhi Jal Board & Ors. .... Respondent
Through Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioners and nine other applicants had filed TA No.
788/2009 titled Sh. Ram Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Delhi Jal Board &
Ors., praying, inter alia, for a direction to respondent No. 1 to amend
the seniority list dated 26th March, 1993 and 27th July, 1999 and to
give proper placements to them and to review the DPC of September,
1997 for regular promotion of Assistant Engineer ( C ) and to promote
the petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 and nine other applicants from September,
1997 with proper placement in seniority list which petition has been
dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench by
order dated 26th October, 2009, which is impugned only by the
petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in the present writ petition.
The petitioners and other applicants challenged seniority list of
Junior Engineer (Civil) appointed during the period 1972-1991 and later
on up to the year 1999 contending that the seniority had to be fixed
from the respective dates of appointment and seniority lists of 1993 &
1999, ex-facie, showed violation. Therefore, those seniority lists are to
be declared as invalid and inconsequential and for redrafting the
seniorities.
Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners
that during April, 1982 there were backlog vacancies of Junior
Engineers (Civil) meant for scheduled castes/scheduled tribes
candidates and 20 candidates were selected after interview. Out of 20
candidates, 15 had joined up to May, 1982 and later on, consequent to
fresh notification, 8 other persons belonging to scheduled castes only
joined during 1982. According to the petitioners, there was general
recruitment and 17 persons joined during the period 29th April, 1982 to
30th October, 1982.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the general candidates
though secured appointment later on they have been shown en bloc
seniors to the petitioners which is an anomaly apparent and which is to
be corrected.
Before the Tribunal, the petition was contested on behalf of the
respondent no.1 contending, inter alia, that full details had not been
furnished by the petitioners. It was contended that in respect of
scheduled caste candidates only temporary vacancies were available
initially which were filled and not the regular vacancies. The
respondent further contended that there were 100 vacancies and the
selection authorities had prepared a panel and had offered appointment
to 30 general candidates and 21 scheduled caste candidates on 17th
April, 1982. The select panel had placed SC candidates below
unreserved category candidates.
The Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the pleas
and contentions noted that the seniority lists are in existence for over
two decades, as the petitioners are challenging the seniority lists of
1993 and 1999 in 2003 and no plausible reason has been given for the
delay except the plea by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is
a continuing cause of action. How it was continuing cause of action was
not explained before the Tribunal nor any precedent relied on holding
that for the purpose of seniority, it will be continuous cause of action.
Considering the averments made by the petitioner, the Tribunal inferred
that no sufficient cause has been given for the considerable delay and
relying on AIR 1974 SC 2271, the Tribunal held that finalized seniority
lists are not to be upset after a long period of time as the alleged valid
rights also become unenforceable on account of delay and laches. The
Tribunal also held that the alleged irregularity in the seniority lists
should have been challenged within proper time. It was also noted that
on the basis of the seniority lists, which should have been challenged
earlier, the petitioners were even promoted as Assistant Engineers and
the promotion had been accepted by the petitioners on the basis of the
seniority lists of 1993 and of 1999. It was held that therefore, it will be
improper for the petitioners now to allege that the seniority lists of
Junior Engineers, which is in existence for considerable number of
years is liable to be set aside and is to be replaced with fresh seniority
lists to be drawn by the respondent no.1.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show
any sufficient reason for not challenging the seniority lists of 1993 & of
1999 in 2003. It is not disputed that on the basis of the said seniority
lists, the petitioners as Junior Engineers were promoted as Assistant
Engineers and the seniority as Assistant Engineers has also been based
on the seniority lists of 1993 & 1999 i.e the seniority lists of Junior
Engineers which had been accepted by the petitioners at the time of
their promotion.
In the circumstances, no sufficient reason has been disclosed by
the petitioners explaining the delay on their part and in the
circumstances, at this belated stage, it will not be appropriate to change
the seniority lists of 1993 and 1999. The petitioners have failed to
make out a case, in the circumstances, to interfere with the order of the
Tribunal. This Court does not find any such perversity, illegality or
irregularity in the impugned order dated 26th October, 2009 in TA
788/2009 which will require any interference by this Court in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is without any merit and, it is therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
APRIL 22, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'
