Delhi High Court
Pratigya vs Union Of India & Anr. on 8 August, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 4464/2012
% 8th August, 2013
PRATIGYA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Puran Chand, Adv. for Mr. S.
Rajappa, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by one Ms. Pratigya seeking appointment by
promotion to the post of Senior Librarian-cum-Instructor.
2. Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Librarian-cum-Instructor with the
respondent no.2 vide letter dated 4.2.2004. The petitioner successfully
completed her probation period and was accordingly vide letter dated
30.8.2006 of the respondent no.2 held to have successfully completed the
probation period.
WP(C) 4464/2012 Page 1 of 4
3. On 30.9.2008, one Sh. Y.N.Gaur who was a Senior Librarian-
cum-Instructor was retired. Petitioner claims that petitioner should be
appointed to that post and there should not be recruitment by means of
deputation or direct recruitment to the post.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, it is not disputed that the relevant
promotion and recruitment rule for appointment to the post of Senior
Librarian-cum-Instructor of the respondent no.2 is as under:-
11. Method of recruitment By promotion failing which
by deputation on usual
terms from a Deptt.of Govt.
of India or Central
Autonomous Organization
failing which direct
recruitment.
12. In case of recruitment by promotion, grade from Jr. Librarian after 8 years
which promotion to be made service in the Scale of
Rs.1200-2040
5. In view of the aforesaid recruitment rule, for the post of Senior
Librarian-cum -Instructor, a Junior Librarian such as the petitioner can only
claim appointment if the Junior Librarian has completed 8 years of service.
Petitioner was admittedly employed as Junior Librarian -cum-Instructor
only on 4.2.2004 and therefore, as on date when vacancy arose on
WP(C) 4464/2012 Page 2 of 4
13.9.2008, petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications of 8 years in
service. Petitioner was woefully short by around 3 ½ years of service.
6. It is settled law that the qualifications which have to be
considered for appointment to a post of the person who seeks appointment to
the post is when the vacancy to the post arises. Putting it differently, the
eligibility criteria have to be met by the aspirants to the post on the date
when vacancy arises in the post which is to be filled in by promotion. This
is settled law, inasmuch as, it has been observed on many occasions that if
this principle is not applied by the department, department can conveniently
keep on postponing the filling of posts unless more and more persons
become eligible and some of who find favour for appointment to the post.
Accordingly in law only those persons who satisfy the eligibility
requirements when vacancies arose in the posts are to be considered for
appointment to the posts.
7. In the present case, petitioner did not meet the
selection/qualifying criteria of 8 years service as a Junior Librarian-cum-
Instructor for being appointed as a Senior Librarian-cum-Instructor as on
13.9.2008. Petitioner therefore cannot seek promotion to the post of Senior
Librarian-cum-Instructor when the post fell vacant on 13.9.2008.
WP(C) 4464/2012 Page 3 of 4
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition which is
therefore dismissed. Interim orders passed on 27.8.2012 and continued
thereafter shall stand vacated. All pending applications stand disposed of
accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
AUGUST 08, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
