Delhi High Court
Shri Bhawani Singh vs Indian Council Of Social Science ... on 16 December, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5051/2000
% 16th December, 2013
SHRI BHAWANI SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amrit Pal S. Gambhir and Mr.
Anuj Aggarwal, Advocates.
VERSUS
INDIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH & ANR.
...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, petitioner prays for the relief of being granted
promotion to the post of Assistant Director in the respondent no.1-
organisation. Petitioner has been working from 9.10.1991 as a Research
Assistant.
2. Petition itself specifies the recruitment rule for the post of Assistant
Director and the same reads as under:-
"1.Name of the post Assistant Director
2.Group V
WPC 5051/2000 Page 1 of 4
3.No. of posts 7
4. Scale of Pay Rs.700-40-900-EB-40-1100-50-1300.
5. Age for direct recruitment. Minimum 21 Maximum 45
6. Educational and other A master's degree with 50% marks in any of the
qualifications required for direct social sciences with two years teaching or research
recruitment. experiences, or a doctorate degree in any of the
social sciences.
7. Whether age and educational Age limit may be relaxed
qualifications prescribed for direct
recruitment will apply in the case of
promotion.
8. Period of probation 2 years
9. Method of recruitment (whether 50% Direct Recruitment
by direct recruitment or by
promotion or by deputation & 50% by promotion
percentage of vacancies to be filled
by various methods).
10.Whether selection post, or non- Selection
selection post, if recruitment is by
promotion
11. In case of recruitment by Persons with requisite qualifications and at least
promotion/deputation/transfer,grades five years service as Research Assistant Grade II.
from which
promotion/deputation/transfer to be
made.
12. If a DPC exists, what is its MS, AO, FA&CAO and two other persons
composition. nominated by Chairman who may designate one
of them as Chairman of the Committee.
13. Composition of the Selection MS, AO,FA & CAO and not more than five other
Committee in case of direct persons nominated by the Chairman.
recruitment.
14.Remarks, if any -"
3. A reading of the aforesaid rule shows that qualification criteria
is the same both for appointment by promotion and by direct recruitment.
WPC 5051/2000 Page 2 of 4
The person who seeks promotion must additionally have five years
experience as a Research Assistant Grade-II.
4. So far as the experience of the petitioner is concerned, he would
have experience of five years on 1996, however, the issue is whether
petitioner has the qualification as mentioned in para-6 of the Recruitment
Rules i.e Master's degree with 50% marks in any of the social sciences with
either two years experience of teaching or research experience, or a
doctorate degree in any of the social sciences. The petition is conspicuously
silent as to how the petitioner meets these qualifications. The respondent
no.1 in the counter-affidavit in para 16(iv) has taken up a specific objection
that petitioner does not meet the qualifications. No rejoinder-affidavit has
been filed by the petitioner and therefore surely it must be because petitioner
does not fulfill the qualifications. In fact, petitioner even in the writ petition
itself should have mentioned that how as per the recruitment rules he meets
the qualification criteria for being promoted to the post of Assistant Director,
however, the petition is silent as to how the petitioner meets the qualification
criteria. Therefore, even independent of the fact that whether or not a post
exists, petitioner having failed to show before this Court that he has
WPC 5051/2000 Page 3 of 4
eligibility criteria, he cannot have a successful claim to the post of Assistant
Director.
5. I may also state that the entitlement of the petitioner if not
arisen earlier did arise on the promotion of one Mr. K.D.Gaur as an
Assistant Director in October 1999, and though respondent no.1 contends
that there is no vacant post, I need not go into this aspect in view of the fact
that petitioner has failed to show as to how he has the qualifications for
being appointed as an Assistant Director.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
DECEMBER 16, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
