Delhi High Court

Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors vs Shri Ishwar Singh & Ors. on 22 March, 2011

Author: Veena Birbal

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              W.P.(C) No. 8416/2010 & CM No. 21598/2010

%                       Date of Decision: 22.03.2011

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS               .... Petitioners
              Through Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate

                                 Versus

SHRI ISHWAR SINGH & ORS.                        .... Respondents
                Through Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be
     allowed to see the judgment? No
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in
     the Digest? No


VEENA BIRBAL, J.

1. By way of this petition, petitioners have challenged impugned

order dated 22.07.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) in

O.A. No. 3742/2009 wherein respondents had challenged the order of

petitioners cancelling the offer of appointment issued to them.

2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of present petition are as

under:-

The respondents herein were working with District Rural

Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as „DRDA‟) under Delhi

Administration, Government of NCT of Delhi. They worked on various

posts in the said organization till the closure of the Agency as a result of

which the employees working therein were rendered jobless. Being

aggrieved by the action of authorities in not considering them for

absorption/appointment after they were rendered jobless, a number of

aggrieved persons filed writ petition before the Supreme Court of India

for absorption and regular appointment in the departments of Delhi

Administration. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Supreme

Court with the following directions:-

"16. In the circumstances, it is not possible to accede the request of the petitioners that the respondents be directed to regularize them. The most that can be done for them is to direct the respondents Delhi Administration to keep them on panel and if they are registered with the Employment exchange and are qualified to the appointed on the relevant posts, give them a preference in employment where-ever there occur a vacancy in the regular posts, which directions we give thereby."

As the above directions were not complied with, a contempt

petition No. 78/1994 was filed before the Supreme Court which was

disposed of with the direction to the concerned authority to look into

the matter and pass appropriate order within four weeks.

As per directions issued by the Supreme Court, a panel of

candidates who were registered with the employment exchange was

prepared and those who were eligible and fulfilled the condition of

Recruitment Rules were given appointment and the rest could not be

given any appointment. Few candidates had also filed OA No.

1431/1999 for implementation of order of Supreme Court, wherein the

Tribunal only reiterated the order of the Supreme Court directing that

the Department should ensure implementation of order of Hon‟ble

Supreme Court subject to their eligibility as and when class IV

vacancies occur as per rules and instructions on the subject. Similar

OA 2686/2000 and OA 749/2002 were also disposed of on the same

terms.

From 2001-2005, the respondents had made various

representations for their appointment against Group D vacancies. But

they were not considered. Ultimately, the petitioner no. 2 i.e.

department considered the names of respondents no. 1 and 2 for the

post of Chowkidar, respondent no. 3 for the post of Peon-cum-

Messenger, respondent no. 4 for the post of Lab Assistant and

respondent no. 5 for the post of Peon-cum-Messenger and issued offer

letter on 06.10.2008 to the respondents. They were also asked to

submit their documents with respect to age, qualification, etc.

Thereafter, when the respondents appeared with their certificates, it

was found that they were all over age as such they were not given

appointment. The respondents filed OA No. 2664/2009 which was

disposed of by the Tribunal directing the petitioners to consider the

representation given by them and decide the same by a speaking order.

Thereafter, vide speaking order dated 24.11.2009 the representation of

respondents was rejected. Against the said order the respondents filed

OA No. 3742/2009 challenging the order dated 24.11.2009 on the

ground that the petitioner had given appointment in the year 2001 to

some individuals who were over age and as such respondents should

also get the benefit of age relaxation. The said petition was opposed by

the respondents by contending that no discrimination has been done by

the petitioners and no relaxation has been given as is alleged. Their

further stand was that the respondents did not furnish the names of

the individuals who were over age and were given appointment by the

petitioner as is alleged.

4. The Tribunal disposed of the petition vide impugned order dated

22nd July, 2010 with directions to the petitioners to ascertain the fact of

appointees of 2001 and if it is found that they were over age and were

given appointment, the same treatment be given to the respondents by

adopting an apt methodology by the petitioners.

5. Aggrieved with the same, the present petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that

respondents were given offer of appointment but the same was

subsequently cancelled as they were not fulfilling the age requirement.

It is contended that in the past also no one had been given appointment

by the petitioner who was over age at the relevant time as is alleged. No

one who was over age had been appointed in 2001 also and if any such

appointment is there the concerned authority had already issued show

cause notice to them. It is further contended that respondents have not

given the details of candidates who were alleged to have been given

appointment despite the fact of their being over age as such no

directions were required to be passed by the Tribunal as has been done

vide impugned order dated 22nd July, 2010.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has

submitted that the details of persons who had been given appointment

in 2001 despite being over age have been given in Para 5 of OA No

3742/2009 before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for respondents has

further referred to the order dated 12.01.2001 at page 80 of the paper

book showing the names of candidates at Serial Nos. 14, 15, 17, 21, 22

and 25 as the individuals who were alleged to be over age and were

given the appointment by petitioners.

8. On confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that as per instructions given to her, no

individual who was over age had been given appointment in the past

and if any such individual is given, show cause notice has already been

issued to him.

9. The directions of the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 22nd

July, 2010 are given in Para 7 of the OA which are reproduced below:-

"7. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we now direct respondents to ascertain the fact of appointees of 2001 and if it is found that they are over-aged and their appointment not being disturbed, the same treatment has to be meted out to the applicants by adopting an apt methodology by the respondents which would be to withdraw the order and restore the applicants. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The OA stands disposed of. No costs."

The Tribunal has directed the petitioner to ascertain the fact of

appointees of 2001 and if it is found that they were over age the same

treatment be given to the respondents. The stand of the petitioner is

that the age relaxation was not permissible nor was granted to anyone.

Their further stand is that in 2001 some department had wrongly given

age relaxation wherein show cause notice had already been issued.

Considering the stand of the petitioner, we do not find it appropriate to

interfere with the direction of the Tribunal at this stage. However, if

any action has been taken by the petitioner in cases of individuals

where age relaxation has been given, in that event, petitioner will be free

to take that factor into account while considering the cases of

respondents. Petitioner will pass appropriate order in respect of