Baljeet Singh vs M.C.D. & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2127 Del

$~16
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                               Date of decision: May 08, 2013

+                          W.P.(C) 7103/2012

       BALJEET SINGH                                       ..... Petitioner
                Represented by:        Mr.Avadh Kaushik, Advocate

                                       versus

       M.C.D. & ORS.                                      ..... Respondents
                 Represented by:       Mr.Balendu Shekhar, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner Baljeet Singh filed a suit on January 18, 2000 pleading therein that on January 10, 1996 he was interviewed by the Interview Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as MCD) for the post of School Attendant and in the panel displayed on the notice board of MCD his name was at serial No.28. He waited and waited for a letter offering appointment to be issued to him but in vain. He claimed to have learnt that some persons have been appointed as a School Attendant without their names being in the select panel. He claimed to have issued a legal notice on September 27, 1999 to which no response was received by him. Pleading that it was a recurring cause of action, mandatory injunction was prayed for against the MCD to appoint him as a School Attendant.

2. In the written statement filed, MCD pleaded that the suit was

barred by limitation. It was denied that Baljeet Singh's name was at serial No.28 of the select panel.

3. In the replication filed, Baljeet Singh reiterated the pleas in the plaint and additionally stated that his knowledge that persons whose names were not in the select panel were appointed was derived from newspaper reports.

4. Appearing as his own witness (PW-1) Baljeet Singh exhibited newspaper reports, Ex.PW-1/3 and Ex.PW-1/4, as per which a recurring scam in appointment to Class IV posts in MCD had taken place.

5. The sole witness examined by the MCD, Dr.Chander Bhan, AEO Headquarters proved the office order dated February 25, 1997 as per which posts of School Attendant were sanctioned only for 89 days.

6. Unfortunately, the suit which was filed in the year 2000 could not be decided by the learned Civil Judge till when a notification was issued under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 in the year 2009 requiring all service disputes, including those relating to appointment under MCD to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. Vide decision dated August 05, 2011 the suit, registered as TA No.86/2010 was dismissed.

7. With respect to unexhibited documents, but which were not denied by either party, the Tribunal noted that as per a select list published on February 25, 1997 53 School Attendants, 50 Chowkidars, 29 Nursery Aaya and 49 Safai Karamcharis were appointed on contract basis for a period of 89 days. Though not noted by the Tribunal, the undisputed position is that said persons continued to be re-engaged with an artificial break of 1 day after 89 days and after a few years their services were regularized.

8. As regards Baljeet Singh, in the name of empanelled candidates

pertaining to School Attendants his name was at serial No.78.

9. Dismissing the claim vide order dated August 05, 2011 the Tribunal held that since only 53 School Attendants were appointed and Baljeet Singh's name was at serial No.78, no wrong was done to him. The suit was also held to be barred by limitation because the select list was notified on February 25, 1997 and the plaint was instituted on January 18, 2000.

10. The Tribunal noted that on November 20, 2009, Baljeet claims to have received information under the Right to Information Act as per which one Bhuvneshwar Prashad S/o Jwala Prashad had been appointed as a School Attendant in the Municipal School at Karawal Nagar. But in respect thereof the Tribunal held that there was no evidence that Bhuvneshwar Prashad was engaged from out of the panel prepared in the year 1997.

11. Thereafter, RA No.369/2011 filed by Baljeet Singh was dismissed which was filed on the subject of limitation. The Tribunal held that the select panel was prepared in the year 1997 and the suit filed in the year 2000 was barred by limitation.

12. On the subject of limitation the Tribunal appears to have been misled by the fact that by virtue of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 limitation period prescribed is 1 year, but forgot that in the instant case limitation had to be reckoned as per the Limitation Act; for the year when the suit was filed the Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction with respect to service disputes concerning MCD.

13. Limitation to sue for the job would be 3 years and since the select panel was published on February 25, 1997 limitation of 3 years would expire on February 25, 2000. As noted above, the plaint was instituted on January 18, 2000 and thus the claim was within limitation.

14. But we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on merits. Evidence led at the trial before the Civil Judge conclusively establishes that Baljeet Singh had applied for a post of a School Attendant and his name was at serial No.78 of the select panel and only 53 School Attendants were recruited. In the plaint Baljeet Singh did not make any reference to Bhuvneshwar Prashad nor did he cross examine witness of the MCD on the subject of Bhuvneshwar Prashad's appointment. Much after the trial was over Baljeet Singh obtained information under the Right to Information Act and that too of a very general character. He only sought information whether Bhuvneshwar Prashad was employed by the MCD, to which the answer was in the affirmative. He never sought information and thus none was disclosed as to the year in which Bhuvneshwar Prashad was appointed and in particular whether Bhuvneshwar Prashad was appointed as a School Attendant from out of the select panel prepared and notified on February 25, 1997. He sought to establish his case on the basis of newspaper reports, which are not evidence.

15. Under the circumstances we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that on merits Baljeet Singh failed to make out a case entitling him to the relief prayed for.

16. The writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs. CM No.18364/2012 (stay) Dismissed as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE MAY 08, 2013/mamta