Govt Of Nct Of Delhi vs Moni Singh Krotia
2010 Latest Caselaw 352 Del

*                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                 W.P. (C.) No.13583/2009

%                              Date of Decision: 21.01.2010

Govt of NCT of Delhi                                            .... Petitioner
                               Through Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.

                                        Versus

Moni Singh Krotia                                              .... 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 in                  NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner, Government of NCT of Delhi challenges the order

dated 24th April, 2009 in O.A No.671/2003 titled Moni Singh Krotia v.

Government of NCT of Delhi allowing the original application of the

respondent and holding that the respondent no.1 had been successful

in the selection for appointment to the post of O.T Technician in the pay

scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and directing the petitioners to appoint the

respondent no.1 on the said post.

The respondent No.1 had participated in the process of selection

for the post of O.T.Technician in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- for 27

posts out of which 7 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes. The

respondent No.1 was declared successful after the written test and he

was placed at serial No.6 in the notifications published by the

petitioners.

The grievance of the respondent No.1 is that later on his name

was deleted without any notice to him and in his place the name of

respondent No.2 was substituted. The petitioners justified their action

on the ground that the respondent No.2 had also participated in the

process of selection and he had also scored 26 marks, equal to the

marks obtained by the respondent No.1. The substitution of the name

of the respondent No.2 was justified on the ground that the respondent

No.2 is older to respondent No.1 as the date of birth of respondent No.2

is 25th June, 1975 whereas the date of birth of respondent No.1 is 18th

November, 1975 and, therefore, the respondent No.2 had become

entitled for selection in preference to respondent No.1. Regarding the

publication of result and the notices given in the newspaper declaring

respondent no.1 as successful and not declaring respondent no.2 as a

successful candidate, it was contended on behalf of petitioners that it

was on account of discrepancy which had occurred which came to the

notice of the petitioner later on and so subsequently correction was

made.

Aggrieved by the act of the petitioners in substituting the name of

the respondent no.1 with the respondent no.2, respondent

no.1/applicant filed an original application before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench which was allowed. The

Tribunal while rejecting the pleas and contentions of the petitioners has

categorically noted that the petitioners have failed to produce the

answer sheet of the respondent No.2 or any other relevant document to

show that he had scored 26 marks, marks equivalent to the marks of

respondent No.1.

Since the examination was conducted by Educational

Consultants India Ltd, the marks scored by respondent no.2 must be in

the result prepared by them which must have been sent to the

petitioners. However, nothing had been produced by the petitioners.

The petitioners not only did not produce the answer sheet of the

respondent No.2 or the result prepared by the Educational Consultants

India Ltd but also did not produce the files regarding selection of staff

and the plea was that the original files have been misplaced. The

Tribunal has noted that non availability of answer sheet, misplacement

of mark list, non tracing the files including the noting could not have

happened simultaneously and on account of any accident and this was

mere to camouflage the substitution of the name of the respondent No.1

by respondent No.2 who is not even eligible according to the eligibility

norms as he did not have the requisite experience and to justify the

illegality committed by the petitioners.

The Tribunal has also considered that respondent No.2 did not

possess the required experience and, therefore, he was not even eligible

for selection to the post of O.T.Technician.

This has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the respondent No.1 has been carrying on the job of

O.T.Technician for many years on a consolidated pay, therefore, the

plea that respondent No.1 was not eligible had also been repelled. The

learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show as to how

the respondent no.1 was not eligible. The respondent no.1 was not only

allowed to appear in the examination but he was declared successful

and had also been placed at serial No.6. In the circumstances, the plea

of the petitioners that the respondent no.1 was not eligible cannot be

accepted.

In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

not been able to make out any ground for this Court to interfere with

the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dated

24th April, 2009. The writ petition is without any merit and it is,

therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

JANUARY 21, 2010                               MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'