Delhi High Court
Radhey Shyam Garg. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 12 March, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C ) No.1732/2010
% Date of Decision: 12.03.2010
Radhey Shyam Garg. .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the
petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. .... Respondents
Nemo
Through
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 petitioner has challenged the order dated 28th October, 2009
in T.A. No.1121/2009, titled as Radhey Shyam Garg v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi passed by Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing the original application of the
petitioner seeking appointment as Assistant Engineer (Civil) against the
direct recruitment quota.
The relevant facts to comprehend the pleas of the petitioner are
that he joined as Work Assistant in MCD on 05.02.1983, and was
appointed as Junior Engineer on 25th August, 1987. He was reverted
as Work Assistant on 25.02.1988, and reappointed as Junior Engineer
from 2nd June, 1989.
In 1990 direct recruitment was made for the post of Assistant
Engineer, but the petitioner had not applied though he had a degree,
but because he did not have two years experience after obtaining the
requisite degree.
It appears that the Selection List of direct appointees was
challenged in various other writ petitions where the petitioner was not a
party as he did not have two years requisite experience. The petitions
were allowed and those persons who did not have two years requisite
experience but who had filed the writ petitions in the facts and
circumstances of those writ petitions were subsequently appointed as
Assistant Engineer pursuant to selection undertaken in 1990.
The petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition being WP(C)
No.16933/2005, seeking appointment from 1990 though he did not
have requisite experience. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was
decided on 14th September, 2006 declining to appoint petitioner as
Assistant Engineer pursuant to the selection made in 1990. The
petitioner was, however, allowed to make a representation to the
respondents.
The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the
respondents which was rejected by order dated 17th October, 2006. The
petitioner challenged the rejection of his representation and again
sought appointment pursuant to the selection made in 1990 on the
ground that similarly placed persons who did not have two years
requisite experience, and who had filed the petitions were appointed as
Assistant Junior Engineer pursuant to selection made in 1990 though
they also did not have two years requisite experience after obtaining the
degree.
The Tribunal has noted while dismissing the original application
of the petitioner that he was appointed as Junior Engineer in 1989 and
for the post of Assistant Engineer he did not have two years requisite
experience in 1990, therefore, he did not apply for appointment by
direct recruitment. This was also noticed that some of the junior
engineers who did not have two years requisite experience had filed the
writ petitions which were allowed in the facts and circumstances of
those case, however, in case of the petitioner his writ petition was
dismissed, declining his prayer to appoint him as Assistant Engineer
since 1990 though he did not have requisite experience despite
petitioner bringing to the knowledge of the Tribunal order passed in
case of other junior engineers who had been appointed as Assistant
engineers without having two years experience. The petitioner was
however, given liberty to make a representation.
The learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically contended
that since he was given a right to make representation he is entitled to
be appointed as Assistant Engineer though he had not completed two
years and did not have requisite experience and even though he had not
applied for the selection made in 1990 on the ground that similarly
placed persons had have been appointed as Assistant Engineers since
1990.
The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted because he had challenged his non appointment as Assistant
Engineer though he had not applied for selection made in 1990 which
was rejected by the Tribunal. This is also admitted that the petitioner
had not even applied for selection as he did not fulfill the requisite
eligibility conditions. This is also not disputed that the order of the
Tribunal dismissing his earlier petition was not challenged by him.
Merely because the petitioner was given a right to make a
representation and therefore, on petitioner making the representation
and on rejection of the representation by the respondents, the finding of
the Tribunal in the earlier original application will not become in
operative or nullity. Consequently the decision of the Tribunal
dismissing his petition cannot be faulted on the ground which has been
raised by the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not have any
right to be appointed as Assistant Engineer pursuant to the selection
made in 1990 in which the petitioner had not applied, or participated
and as he did not have requisite eligibility conditions. If petitions of
some of the junior Engineers have been allowed despite those junior
Engineers not having the requisite eligibility conditions, the petitioner
cannot claim equality, as his petition seeking similar relief had been
declined earlier which was not challenged by him.
In the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the
order of the Tribunal as it does not have any such illegality or
irregularity which will require interference of 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.
MARCH 12, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'anb/vk'
