Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Jagdeep Raj Singh on 5 October, 2010
Author: Indermeet Kaur
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 05.10.2010
+ RSA No.77/2000
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ...........Appellant
Through: Ms.Saroj Bidawat, Advocate.
Versus
JAGDEEP RAJ SINGH ..........Respondent
Through: Mr.Virender Mehta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and
decree dated 5.3.1999 which had endorsed the finding of the Trial
Judge dated 31.7.1996. Vide judgment and decree dated
31.7.1996, the suit of the plaintiff Jagdeep Raj Singh was
dismissed. The impugned judgment has decreed his suit.
2. The only bone of contention before this Court is as to
whether the 'Pratahma Pariksha Certificate' is equivalent to a
matriculation or not.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed before this
Court two judgments rendered by this Court reported in 2002(65)
DRJ 490 Pradeep Kumar Vs. MCD 2003(67) DRJ 238 (DB) Vijay
Pal singh Vs. UOI . In both the cases, it has been categorically
held that the 'Pratahma Pariksha Certificate' is equivalent to a
matriculation degree.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff
Jagdeep Raj Singh had passed the Pratahma Pariksha from Hindi
Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag with a second division in the academic
year 1965-66. He was working as a Medical Record Attendant
with the appellant/MCD w.e.f. 2.11.1975. Vide order dated
17.5.1984 of the appellant department the Medical Record
Attendants who were matriculate and employed between the
period 1972 to 1979 were being offered ad hoc appointments for a
period of one year subject to their passing the english type test at
a speed of 30 w.p.m.. In May 1984 there were six vacancies of a
Medical Record Clerk and for the purpose of filling the said posts
Corporation had appointed a Departmental Promotion Committee
(DPC). However, in the office order dated 24.7.1984 the name of
the plaintiff was missing from the promotion list. He made several
representations but no avail. Present suit for injunction was
accordingly filed against the department.
5. The Trial Judge had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
Impugned judgment dated 5.3.1999 had allowed his appeal; suit of
the plaintiff was decreed. The impugned judgment had returned a
finding that the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction for
appointment to the post of Medical Record Clerk as per the salary
and allowances permissible in the pay scale Rs.260-400. This was
answered while dealing with issue no.1. The prescribed
educational qualification for this post in terms of the circular
Ex.PW-1/3 is :
(i) High School or equivalent
(ii) Knowledge in Hindi
6. Court had returned a finding that Pratahma Pariksha
Certificate was equivalent to matriculation. Further another
person by the name of Ram Hazoor had also been promoted as a
L.D.C. on the same qualification i.e. Pratahma Pariksha
Certificate.
7. The grounds of appeal are all bordered around this
submission only.
8. After the admission of the appeal, the substantial question of
law formulated by this Court which reads as under;
"Whether the courts below were correct in issuing a direction to
appoint the respondent to a particular post, which is contrary to
the rules and regulations?
9. This controversy has now been set at rest in view of the
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent
as aforenoted. Pratahma Pariksha Certificate is equivalent to a
matriculation degree. The appointment of the respondent could
not be challenged. There is no merit in the appeal; it is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 05, 2010
nandan
