Subhash Chand vs Dvb & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5833 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) 5930/2000

%                                                    December 17, 2013

      SUBHASH CHAND                                           ......Petitioner
                  Through: None

                          VERSUS

      DVB & ORS.                                          ...... Respondents

                          Through:       None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. Petitioner by means of this writ petition seeks the relief of being

appointed to the post of Assistant Electrical Fitter with the Delhi Vidyut

Board. Delhi Vidyut Board has been unbundled and now the successor

entity would be a DISCOM as per the unbundling scheme. Writ petition

however has not been amended to add the successor entity. Possibly for

this reason itself, petition may not be maintainable, however, I am

deciding the petition on merits as per the record.

2. The facts of the case are that petitioner applied for appointment for

the post of Assistant Electrical Fitter in Delhi Vidyut Board as per the

advertisement in Hindustan Times on 01.3.1999. Qualification for the

post of Assistant Electrical Fitter included a requirement of ITI certificate

in electrical or equivalent trade. Petitioner was called for the interview,

was selected and was issued an appointment letter dated 16.5.2000, which

is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Petitioner however was

denied appointment by the impugned order dated 30.8.2000 and which

reads as under:

"E/Tech/2000-2001/VPK/2062 Dated 28th/30th Aug, 2000 REGISTERED AD

Shri Subhash Chand, s/o Shri Ishar Ram, House no: D-1655, on Dhansa Road, Opposite M/s Sansar Petrol Pump, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043:

SUB: Appointment for the post of Asstt. Electric Fitter Dear Sir, Please refer to our offer of Appointment letter no:AO(P-I)/E/Tech/99- 2000/SC-96/1060 dated 16th May, 2000 on the post of Asstt. Elect. Fitter.

In this connection, I am directed to inform you that since you do not possess the necessary technical qualification required for the post of Asstt. Elec. Fitter, as such our offer of appointment stands cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

(G.SRINIVASAN) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (P-1)"

3. Petitioner has therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking

appointment By pleading that since eligibility requirement included

equivalent trade to an ITI certificate in electrical field, petitioner was

qualified because he had an ITI certificate in electronics mechanical.

4. The issue to be decided in this writ petition is whether respondent

is entitled to deny appointment to the petitioner as ITI in the trade of

electronic mechanical is not equivalent to ITI in electrical trade.

5. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondent shows that, as per the

recruitment rules, the eligibility condition for appointment of an Assistant

Electrical Fitter was that the person must have ITI diploma in electrical

trade. The expression „equivalent trade‟ was however, mentioned in the

advertisement, and therefore, the Delhi State Services Selection Board

left it to the Delhi Vidyut Board to decide the issue of equivalence.

6. The respondent has categorically stated that qualification of ITI in

the trade of electronics mechanical is not equivalent to ITI in electrical

trade, which is the requirement as per the recruitment rules.

7. This Court can only interfere with the decision of the respondent

with respect to equivalence, if the action of the respondent was arbitrary.

In my opinion, once the recruitment rules only required ITI in electrical

trade, insertion of the expression „equivalent trade‟ in the advertisement

will have to be considered strictly and it is the entitlement of the

respondent to demand exact equivalence. Respondent was therefore

justified in its action and no arbitrariness in the action of the respondent is

found in refusing to equate ITI in electrical trade with ITI in electronic

mechanical. Petitioner, therefore, cannot seek a relief of appointment to

the post of Assistant Electrical Fitter as is prayed for in the writ petition.

8. There is another reason why this Court should not grant the relief

as prayed for. This is because exercise of powers under Article 226 is

discretionary, and this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that Delhi

Vidyut Board as it originally stood no longer exists and it has been

divided into various entities/distribution companies (DISCOMS). As of

today, petitioner would be governed by which DISCOM cannot be known

because if the petitioner did not get appointment, it cannot be known

today that which was the zone in which the petitioner would have been

appointed, and therefore, which was the successor entity of Delhi Vidyut

Board with whom petitioner would have got employment.

9. Another aspect to be noted is that petitioner does not dispute that

the appointment given to him was for a temporary post, and therefore,

once appointment is only to a temporary post, in terms of the letter of the

Delhi Vidyut Board dated 16.5.2000, no purpose will be served in the

year 2013 for grant of a temporary post to the petitioner, more so

because, by the appointment letter dated 16.5.2000, services in the

temporary post could be terminated by one month notice.

10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same

is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J DECEMBER 17, 2013 KA