Delhi High Court
Chander Shamsher Singh vs Indian Railways Catering & ... on 4 April, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3103/2012
% 4th April, 2013
CHANDER SHAMSHER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Chandel, Advocate.
versus
INDIAN RAILWAYS CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. .....
Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. No one appears for the respondent in spite of service. I have, therefore,
heard the counsel for the petitioner and am proceeding to dispose of the petition.
2. By this writ petition, petitioner prays for direction to the respondent-Indian
Railways Catering & Tourism Corporation to appoint the petitioner as an
Executive, the post to which petitioner applied pursuant to the advertisement dated
2.5.2011.
3. The petitioner has been denied the appointment on the ground that the
petitioner was only provisionally called for the interview subject to his furnishing
W.P.(C) 3103/2012 Page 1 of 6
experience certificate upto 23.12.2011 but since the petitioner failed to submit the
same, hence the petitioner was declared ineligible for appointment.
The RTI query of the petitioner in this regard is as under:
" 1. Total marks obtained by me in written exam and
personal interview."
The response of the respondent in terms of its letter dated 3.4.2012 is
as under:
"Para 1: The total marks obtained by you in written
test is 42.61 marks (out of 70 marks) and in interview is
12 marks (out of 30 marks). However, you were found
ineligible as you had been allowed the interview
provisionally subject to your production of experience
certificate upto 23.12.2011. But you have not submitted
the same, hence you were declared ineligible."
4. Counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner complies with the
requirements and, therefore, he should have been appointed. Let us, therefore, see
the requirements of appointment. The same are as under:
012 Executive 24(un- Major On 30 Essential: Rs.30000/-
Contract
(E-0) reserved:14, Cities Basis Regular Bachelors Consolidated
CBC:6, degree in Tourism pay +
Studies or tourism Incentives
SC:3, ST:1) Management,
from a
UGC/AICTE
recognized
University/Institut
e. Working
W.P.(C) 3103/2012 Page 2 of 6
knowledge of
(MS-Office)
essential.
Desirable:
Knowledge of a
foreign language.
Experience:
Minimum 3 years
post qualification
work experience
in a PSU or
reputed travel and
tourism
organization, in
operations/marketi
ng.
Candidates from
private sector
having a minimum
CTC of ` 2.5
lakhs per annum
will be eligible for
applying.
The aforesaid shows that for the requirement of experience, it is necessary
that the experience must be of three years in a reputed organisation with a pay of `
2.5 Lakhs per annum. The question is did the petitioner have a pay of ` 2.5 Lakhs
per annum for three years.
W.P.(C) 3103/2012 Page 3 of 6
5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the documents filed at pages 23
and 24 of the paper book which are the salary slips of two private organisations
with which the petitioner has/had worked. First is of "Le Passage to India Tours &
Travels Private Limited" and the other is of "Thomas Cook (India) Limited".
6. The first pay slip is of July, 2009 of Le Passage to India Tours & Travels
Private Limited and which shows that the monthly pay of the petitioner was `
23,930/-. However, this would be the pay only in July, 2009 and not from
1.11.2007 when the petitioner was appointed by Le Passage to India Tours &
Travels Private Limited.
This case was listed yesterday and on the request of the petitioner that he
will file the necessary documents, this case was listed today for arguments. Though
no documents have been filed today in the Court, the counsel for the petitioner
filed the appointment letter dated 11.11.2007 of Le Passage to India Tours &
Travels Private Limited. This appointment letter shows that the petitioner's salary
at the time of his appointment on 1.11.2007 was only ` 9150/- per month, i.e.,
much below ` 2.5 Lakhs per annum. Therefore, for the period of employment of
20 months with Le Passage to India Tours & Travels Private Limited it cannot be
said that the petitioner had a pay package of ` 2.5 Lakhs per annum at all points of
time from 1.11.2007 to July, 2009.
W.P.(C) 3103/2012 Page 4 of 6
In fact, in my opinion, the petitioner is trying to be clever by half because
besides not filing the salary slips from 1.11.2007 till July, 2009 and which is
necessary to know the yearly emoluments of ` 2.5 lacs per annum, when the
appointment letter dated 11.11.2007 was filed in Court during the hearing, the
salary was shown at ` 9150/- per month, i.e annual salary would surely be less than
` 2.5 Lakhs per annum. Therefore, obviously the petitioner deliberately has not
filed documents showing the salary payment right from 1.11.2007 to July, 2009,
which was the period of employment with "Le Passage to Indian Tours and Travels
Pvt. Ltd." and therefore petitioner has not shown his annual pay package of ` 2.5
lacs for this period.
7. So far as the pay slip of Thomas Cook (India Limited) is concerned, the
same shows that the petitioner only had a salary of ` 20,325/- per month, i.e., less
than ` 2.5 Lakhs per annum. Even this salary slip is only for April, 2011 and it is
not known what was the salary of the petitioner from 1.2.2010 when he was
appointed with Thomas Cook (India) Limited till April, 2011, for which month
only the salary slip has been filed.
8. It is thus quite clear that the petitioner is only conveniently filing some
documents but not all the documents. Obviously, this strategy would also have
been employed even with the respondent, and therefore, the respondent did not
give him employment.
W.P.(C) 3103/2012 Page 5 of 6
9. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner did not meet the requirement of
having salary of ` 2.5 Lakhs per annum for three years, and therefore failed to
meet the qualification required, and hence was not entitled to seek employment
with the respondent.
10. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own
costs.
APRIL 04, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
sv
