Arun Kumar vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4103 Del

$~14
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 1965/2013 and CM 3745/2013
%                                                        11.09.2013


       ARUN KUMAR                                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Mr. P.C. Sharma,
                          Advocates

                          versus

       GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.              .... Respondents

Through Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Advocate for Ms. Jagdeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Ms. Zubeda Begum, Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocates for respondent No. 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. I have already dealt with a similar issue with respect to appointment

made to a post in the respondent No. 2-Institute as per the judgment

delivered in the case of Amrish Chanana & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

& Anr. in W.P.(C) 1045/2013 decided on 3.5.2013.

2. As per the facts which emerge on record in the present case there was

a sanctioned post to which the petitioner was appointed, petitioner's

selection was through regular recruitment process where candidates were

called through advertisement in Newspaper, petitioner was qualified in

terms of the advertisement and was given the same appointment letter and

which has been commented upon and interpreted in Amrish Chanana's case

(supra).

3. Though counsel for the respondent No. 2 states that an LPA has been

filed against the judgment in Amrish Chanana's case (supra), however, it is

conceded that there is no stay of operation of the impugned judgment and

thus there is no impediment to decide the present case.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has sought to

distinguish the judgment in the case of Amrish Chanana and Ors. (supra)

by stating that in the present case petitioner was wrongly appointed against a

different roster point post, however, I find that there is no averment in the

counter-affidavit that if the correct roster point system was followed there

would be no vacancies available for petitioner to be appointed to such a

post. Since there is a vacancy at the correct roster point sanctioned post for

the petitioner to be appointed, therefore I do not think that the judgment of

Amrish Chanana and Ors. (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present

case.

5. Therefore, adopting the ratio in the case of Amrish Chanana's

(supra), this writ petition is also allowed and the impugned advertisement

dated 2.2.2013 is quashed. Petitioner will be treated as having been

appointed on regular basis to the post to which petitioner has been selected

and appointed, subject however that the petitioner successfully completes

the probationary period. Respondents are restrained in any manner treating

the services of the petitioner as contractual. Parties to bear their own costs.

CM 3745/2013 is also disposed of accordingly.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 godara