Delhi High Court
Rajinder Singh vs Ministry Of Railways & Ors on 8 February, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.414/2010
% Date of Decision: 08.02.2010
Rajinder Singh .... Petitioner
Through Mr.B.S.Chaudhary, Advocate.
Versus
Ministry of Railways & Ors .... Respondents
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 in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
CM No.1735/2010
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
CM No.1734/2010
This is an application by the petitioner/applicant for setting aside
the order dated 21st January, 2010 dismissing the writ petition in
default of appearance of petitioner and his counsel.
Notice of the writ petition had not been issued to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that he was unwell and on
account of his indisposition and he could not appear on 21st January,
2010 and the writ petition was dismissed, in default of appearance of
petitioner and his counsel. The application is supported by the affidavit
of Mr.B.S.Chaudhary, counsel for the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the application is allowed and the order
dated 21st January, 2010 dismissing the writ petition in default of
appearance of petitioner and his counsel is set aside and the writ
petition is restored to its original number.
W.P(C) No.414/2010
The petitioner challenges the order dated 7th September, 2009 in
O.A No.1840/2009 dismissing his original application seeking
appointment since 1993 to the Class III post.
The petitioner had earlier filed an O.A No.1095/1993 which was
disposed of on 29th July, 1999. While disposing of the petitioner's
original application No.1095/1993 on 29th July, 1999 the respondents
were directed to appoint applicant at his turn in accordance with the
list on occurrence of an appropriate vacancy for his appointment.
The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 29th July, 1999
whereby respondents were directed to appoint him whenever a vacancy
may arise on the ground that he is not entitled for appointment when
the vacancy may arise but he is entitled for appointment either from
1988 or 1993 as is claimed by the petitioner later on. Consequently, the
directions of the Tribunal in O.A No.1095/1993 which was decided on
29th July, 1999 became final. The petitioner pursuant to the order dated
29th July, 1999 was appointed in 2000.
After accepting the appointment in compliance with the order
dated 29th July, 1999 in O.A No.1095/1993, almost after nine years
petitioner had challenged his appointment from 2000 and had
contended that he was entitled for appointment either from 1988 or
from 1993.
The Tribunal has held that the pleas of the petitioner that he is
entitled for appointment from 1988 or 1993 and not from the date of
occurrence of vacancy should have been made by the petitioner in the
first O.A filed by him.
The petitioner has also not given any plausible reason for
approaching the Tribunal after nine years after his appointment in 2000
and consequently dismissing the petition seeking appointment from
1988 or 1993.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to give any cogent
reason or ground as to how the petitioner can raise the plea now for
appointment from 1988 or 1993 after the decision dated 29th July, 1999
which was not challenged by the petitioner.
No cogent ground has also been disclosed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner for approaching the Tribunal nine years after his
appointment in 2000. If the petitioner was appointed in 2000 and he
was not appointed from 1988 or 1993, the petitioner should have
approached the Tribunal within the reasonable time. There is no
explanation either pleaded or given by the petitioner for the delay.
In the circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity in the
order of the Tribunal dated 7th September, 2009 in O.A No.1840/2000
titled Rajinder Singh v. Ministry of Railway through Secretary, Railway
Board and Ors dismissing his application seeking appointment from
1988 or 1993 which will require interference by this Court in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ
petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
February 8, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'
