Dheeraj Kumar vs Dist. Judge I, & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 4067 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            W.P.(C) No. 7990/2012 & CM 10160/2013

%                                              10th September, 2013

DHEERAJ KUMAR                                    ..... Petitioner
                          Through Mr. Sumit Bansal, Advocate
                versus
DIST. JUDGE I, & ANR                            ..... Respondents

Through Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Tania Ahlawat, Advocates 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 seeks appointment as a Stenographer

Grade-III in the District & Sessions courts, Delhi.

2. The case of the petitioner in short is that he falls under the general

category of which there were 45 vacancies, of which vacancies only 41 were

filled, and therefore, petitioner being No. 2 in the waiting list, was bound to

have been intimated by the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi an offer to join

the post of Stenographer Grade-III.

3. Learned counsel for both the parties relied upon the Full Bench

judgment of this Court in the case of Maninder Kaur vs. Delhi High Court

& Ors., 57(1995) DLT 288 which holds that once all the persons with

respect to the notified vacancies join, thereafter a candidate whose name is

in the waiting list has no right to join against any future vacancy which may

arise, however in case if all the persons who are offered the posts do not join

then those in the wait-list have to be offered the seats not filled in. In the

present case, it is argued by the petitioner that since all the 45 vacancies

were not filled, the petitioner should have been appointed inasmuch as the

petitioner was at serial No. 2 in the waiting list. Actually though the factual

position as urged by the petitioner is correct and on that count I can allow

the writ petition and direct the appointment of the petitioner, however, the

writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the reasons given hereafter.

4. The fact of the matter is that after the subject selection process of

2007 was concluded by joining of only 41 candidates out of 45 vacancies,

however thereafter the life of the waiting list/panel came to an end because

the un-filled vacancies were merged in the subsequent recruitment process

which took place in the year 2008. The vacancies of Stenographers Grade-

III, and a post to which petitioner is an aspirant, and which post remained

vacant in the 2006-2007 recruitment process were advertised in 2008

recruitment process and filled in. In fact, subsequently, another recruitment

process took place in the year 2010 when other set of vacancies of

Stenographers Grade-III were again filled in. Therefore, lot of water has

flown under the bridge since the selection list including the waiting list was

prepared on 15.5.2007 before this writ petition was filed in 2012. The right

of the petitioner to get appointment with respect to vacancies advertised

through recruitment process 2007 has now become irrelevant because these

very vacant posts have been filled in as per the two subsequent recruitment

processes. May be the petitioner has some genuine reasons i.e. of his illness

or illness of his mother or his financial condition to file the writ petition in

2012, but I am reluctant to grant any relief under Article 226 at this stage

because vested rights have come into existence in favour of the appointees

of the 2008 and 2010 processes, and which position I would not like to

disturb.

5. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear

their own costs. CM 10160/2013 is accordingly disposed of.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara