Delhi High Court
Generation Engineers & ... vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors on 7 May, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07th May, 2012
+ CM 546/2012 in W.P.(C) 7727/2008
GENERATION ENGINEERS & SUPERVISORS
ASSOCIATION THR. ITS GENERAL
SECRETARY & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Amit Kumar, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Vinay Sabharwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide instant application, the applicant/respondent has sought the
modification of the order dated 01.11.2011 passed by this Court and also
sought clarifications - as referred in para No.6 thereto.
2. The order passed by this Court on 01.11.2011 is as under:-
„In view of the above Respondents shall comply
with the letter dated 5th August, 2010 of the
Respondent/IPGCL to the Principal Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi subject to the petitioner
withdrawing the present Writ Petition. The
Respondents are directed to do so within a period
of eight weeks from today.
In view of above Counsel for the Petitioner
seeks leave to withdraw this Petition. The Writ
Petition is dismissed as withdrawn in the above
terms. All pending applications also stand
disposed.
Copy of this order be given dasti to Counsel
for parties.‟
3. In the instant application, it is submitted that in another connected writ
petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.797/2009, this Court had granted ad-interim order
in respect of the appointment to the post of Deputy General Manager (HR);
however, respondent No.2 had simultaneously, moved an application in the
said case for immediately vacation of the stay order.
4. Further submitted, in the letter dated 05.08.2010, written by the Chief
Vigilance Officer to the Secretary (Power) referred to above, on the basis of
which the order dated 01.11.2011 was passed, it is mentioned that the main
file in which the recruitment process was initiated on the basis of the
advertisement dated 30.06.2008, was missing and was not traceable.
5. It is further stated that the recruitment cell had issued another office
note dated 14.12.2011 to find out the records from the then officers, who
were dealing with the subject and as well handling the files in the past. As
such at this stage, it could not be ascertained exactly how many candidates
had applied against the first advertisement and the second advertisement
specifically. Out of the total applications received originally, the exact
numbers of which cannot be known now in the absence of main file, only 19
numbers applications are available, except available 06 applications in one
of the file who were called for the interview, scheduled on 03.11.2008.
6. Apartfrom these 13, applications were also made available by the
earlier dealing officer (Deputy Manager (HR)-V) in response to the recent
letter dated 14.12.2011. However, it cannot be established that the list of all
the applications are available against the un-amended advertisement dated
30.06.2008 and amended advertisement dated 31.07.2008.
7. It is further stated that in view of this factual position, it may not be
possible to communicate to all those candidates who might have applied as
per the first un-amended advertisement dated 30.06.2008, regarding
resumption of the selection process.
8. The applicant/respondent has also apprehended the possibility that
most of the candidates might have already got settled elsewhere during the
interregnum, since a long time has already elapsed ever since the initiation
of the original recruitment process, therefore, such candidates may not even
be available or interested in pursuing their candidature for the said post.
9. In the circumstances, applicant/respondent would suggest that a fresh
notification/advertisement for recruitment to the said post of Deputy General
Manager (HR) would be issued inviting fresh applications apart from the
interested candidates from those who had originally applied on the basis of
R & P Regulations which were applicable then (in terms of advertisement
dated 30.06.2008) including the ones who applied after amended R & P
Rules, in case they quality as per the un-amended R & P Rules with age
relaxation to the extent of the period from the filing of writ petition till the
issuance of fresh notifications, to original applicants including the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted and clarified that order
passed on 05.10.2011 in W.P.(C) No.797/2009 has nothing to do with the
case of the petitioner. Therefore, mentioning of same, in the instant
application, itself misleading this Court. Their only purpose is to delay and
not to comply the same.
12. Learned counsel for petitioner has further pointed out that vide order
dated 04.08.2008, Chief Vigilance Officer requested DG (HR) has conveyed
to trace the file. And in case it is not traceable, FIR may be lodged for the
lost of the file.
13. Vide the internal noting dated 12.08.2010, it is noted that 'The file
since got traced. Same may be sent to D M (Vig) for n.a.'. Moreso, in the
note dated 08.10.2010, it is noted as under:-
"As desired telephonically, the file containing
pages 1-/N and G2/ ........ is returned back for
doing the needful and returning after then."
14. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR has not been lodged
against the erring officers nor effective steps have been taken by the
respondents.
15. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the communication dated
30.11.2011 by Mr.Vinay Sabharwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the applicant/respondent as under:-
Since the petition filed by Shri S.R. Sagar against
IPGCL bearing W.P.(C)No.797/2009 was also
listed on the same day, it was appropriate both for
the counsel for Shri S.R.Sagar and the counsel for
IPGCL in W.P.(C) No.797/2009 to have brought to
the notice of this Hon‟ble Court that there was a
stay operating in the said petition filed by
Sh.S.R.Sagar. Having failed to do that, it would
not be appropriate to immediately move an
application in the W.P.(C) No.797/2009 filed by
Shri S.R.Sagar seeking further appropriate
directions in the matter in view of the interim stay
granted in the said petition of Sh.S.R.Sagar.
Needful should be done immediately."
16. Learned counsel further submitted that instead of complying the order
dated 01.11.2011, respondents are resorting to delaying tactics on one
pretext or the other.
17. After hearing both the parties, I find no merit in the application. Same
is dismissed with costs of `15,000/- to be paid in favour of petitioner.
18. I further direct that if the order in question is not complied within six
weeks from today, respondent shall pay further costs of `50,000/- to
petitioner.
19. Copy of order dasti to both sides for compliance.
SURESH KAIT, J
MAY 07, 2012
Mk
