Jagdish Lal vs Vice Chanceller,University Of ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1441 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         WP(C) No.1893/2013

%                                                         March 22, 2013

      JAGDISH LAL                                   ..... Petitioner
               Through:            Mr. T.D. Yadav, Adv.

                          versus

    VICE CHANCELLER,UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS
                                        ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Adv. for DU.

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 the petitioner seeking the relief

that he should be considered for promotion to the post of Technical

Assistant in the coming DPC.

2. The relevant requirements for promotion to the post of

Technical Assistant under 50% merit quota are as under:-

"UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (UNIVERSTIY OF DELHI) DILSHAD GARDEN, DELHI - 110095

NO.MC/CCS/IV/5/2012 DATED: 13.07.2012

NOTIFICATION

The Governing Body in its meeting held on 6th June 2012 has revised the existing Recruitment Rules for the

appointment of Technical Assistant under 50% Merit Quota till the University frames fresh Recruitment Rules. The Governing Body after deliberations decided that henceforth 50% of Technical Assistants to be appointed under merit quota shall be filled up from amongst the Laboratory Assistants who have completed three years of regular service in the cadre in the following manner:-

1. Annual confidential Report: Good and above during the last three years;

2. An incumbent Laboratory Assistant not possessing any qualification in the field of MLT i.e. DMLT B.Sc. (MLT), M.Sc. (MLT shall undergo in-service training programme of one year duration followed by an examination to be conducted by the College.

3. An incumbent Laboratory/Assistant possessing DMLT/B.Sc. (MLT)/M.Sc.(MLT) from a recognized institution shall undergo the weeks in service training programme in the College followed by a written examination alongwith the regular batch undergoing one year in service training programme.

4. The percentage of marks obtained in the In-service Training Programme of the college shall determine the merit.

Sd/-Deputy Registrar 13/7 Copy to:

1. Medical Superintendent, GTB Hospital/All Heads of the Department for to bring it to the notice of all Staff Members, working in the Department.

2. Notice Board

3. UCMS Web Site."

3. As per the writ petition, and para 6 thereof, petitioner's

grievance is against four junior candidates namely Sh. Sourabh Gupta,

Sh.H.P. Tamta, Sh. Roop Ram Premi and Sh. Vinod Kumar and whose

promotions are challenged on the ground that they are not entitled to 50%

merit basis promotion in the coming DPC. These persons have not been

impleaded in this petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner agrees that the petitioner by means

of this writ petition seeks promotion as per the 50% merit quota. That

being so, there are a total of three requirements which a Lab Assistant

must satisfy in order to seek promotion for the post of Technical

Assistant. First requirement is of having three consecutive ACRs with

the grade "good and above". Second requirement is that the candidate

must either undergo in-service training programme of one year duration

followed by an examination to be conducted by the college qua the field

of MLT or if the Lab Assistant possesses the qualification of MLT then

he is only required to undergo in-service training programme in the

college of three weeks. The third requirement is that a candidate who is

to be selected, must have higher marks in the in-service training

programme conducted by the college.

We are presently concerned only with the first requirement

inasmuch as the entitlement of the petitioner to appear before the DPC

can only be if he has three consecutive Annual Confidential Reports with

the grade "good and above" in three years prior to holding of the DPC.

5. On repeated queries the counsel for the petitioner agrees that

there is no averment made in the petition that the petitioner has three

consecutive ACRs of "good and above" and what is only argued is that

the adverse entries have not been communicated to the petitioner. What

are the adverse entries, whether at all there is any downgrading of the

petitioner, what was the year for which the adverse entries are there, are

all aspects which are conspicuous by their absence in the writ petition.

6. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the petitioner does

not satisfy the requirement to be called for promotion under the 50%

merit quota.

7. In view of the fact that the petitioner does not meet the

requirement of having the qualification of three consecutive ACRs of

"good and above" for being considered by the DPC, the petitioner cannot

succeed in this writ petition. Whether any other person is or is not

wrongly called by DPC cannot be an aspect in this writ petition because it

is the claim of the petitioner which is to be considered independently of

any other alleged person not meeting the requirement.

8. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to

bear their own costs.

                                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MARCH          22, 2013
ak