Urmila Devi vs Department Of Women And Child ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 2667 Del

$~15 to 18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     LPA 386/2014
%                                     Date of decision: 23rd May, 2014
      URMILA DEVI                                      ..... Appellant
                             Through:       Mr.Varun Prasad, Adv.

                             versus

      DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD
      DEVELOPMENT                     ..... Respondent
                  Through: Ms.Raavi Birbal, Adv.

+     LPA 387/2014
      RAJ BALA                                         ..... Appellant
                             Through:       Ms.Varun Prasad, Adv.

                    versus

      DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD
      DEVELOPMENT                     ..... Respondent
                  Through: Ms.Raavi Birbal, Adv.

+     LPA 388/2014
      BANARAS GODARA                                   ..... Appellant
                  Through:                  Mr.Varun Prasad, Adv.

                             versus

      DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD
      DEVELOPMENT                     ..... Respondent
                  Through: Ms.Raavi Birbal, Adv.




L.P.A.No.386/2014 and connected matters                       Page 1 of 8
 +     LPA 389/2014
      RAM CHANDRI                                    ..... Appellant
                           Through:       Mr.Varun Prasad, Adv.

                           versus

      DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD
      DEVELOPMENT                     ..... Respondent
                  Through: Ms.Raavi Birbal, Adv.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

      GITA MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

C.M.No.9042/2014 in L.P.A.No.386/2014, C.M.No.9044/2014 in LPA No.387/2014 C.M.No.9046/2014 in LPA no.388/2014 C.M.No.9048/2014 in LPA no.389/2014 (for condonation of delay) Having regard to the nature of the applications, the counsels for the parties are orally heard. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned.

The applications are allowed.

C.M.No.9041/2014 in L.P.A.No.386/2014 C.M.No.9043/2014 in LPA No.387/2014 C.M.No.9045/2014 in LPA no.388/2014 C.M.No.9047/2014 in LPA no.389/2014 (for exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.

L.P.A.No.386/2014, LPA No.387/2014, LPA no.388/2014 and LPA no.389/2014

1. These writ petitions challenge a judgment dated 12th

February, 2014 whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the

writ petitions filed by the respondents herein.

2. The petitioners are all anganwadi workers who were

employed under the scheme of the Central Government known as

Integrated Child Development Service Scheme which was

announced in the year 1975. The dates on which the petitioners

were engaged as Anganwadi Workers are as follows:

       Workmen                                 Date of Joining

1.   Ms.Urmila Devi                            27.10.1987
2.   Ms.Banaras Godara                         12.04.1980
3.   Ms.Raj Bala                               06.08.1986
4.   Ms.Ram Chandri                            23.08.1990

3. The petitioners pressing a claim for promotion to the post of

Supervisor raised industrial disputes which were referred by the

Government of NCT of Delhi to the Industrial Tribunal on the

following terms of reference:

"Whether the workmen are entitled to be promoted to the post of Supervisor, if so, and what relief they are entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

4. It is undisputed that the petitioners were appointed on

regular basis and have been working uninterruptedly ever since

their appointment on the project. It is urged on behalf of the

petitioners that even though the respondents have created 120 posts

of temporary Supervisor, other workers have been temporarily

employed in the post in the year 2007-2008 whereas the petitioners

have been denied appointments. The petitioners submit that they

are also entitled to the promotion as Supervisor in the pay scale of

Rs.4500-7000 after completion of fifteen years of service along

with all consequential benefits.

5. The Tribunal had framed two issues, the first being as to

whether the claim of the petitioners had been properly espoused by

the Union which issue was found in favour of the petitioner. The

second issue was as per the terms of reference. On the second

issue, the Tribunal held that the promotion is a condition of service

and age relaxation restricted to 15 years only for anganwadi

workers was void under section of the 23 of the Contract Act, 1872

as the same was against the public policy. It was held by the

Tribunal that the petitioners were entitled for age relaxation for

their full period of service as anaganwadi workers which would

render the workers liable for promotion to the post of Supervisor

(Women). The Tribunal had ignored the case of the respondent that

the appointment to the post of Supervisor had to be in terms of the

Recruitment Rules, 2007; that the post of Supervisor was a direct

recruitment post and selections thereto were effected at that time by

the Staff Subordinate Service Selection Board. Prior to 2004, the

selections were effected on the basis of personal interview

conducted by the Selection Committee for which candidates were

called through employment exchange. The respondents had

specifically set up the case that the recruitment rules prescribed a

limit for the post of supervisor as 27 years which in the case of

anganwadi workers was relaxable subject to minimum relaxation of

15 years only. As per the rules, reservation of 25% of total post of

Supervisor (Woman) was provided for such anganwadi workers

who were matriculates and also fulfilled the said requirements.

6. Aggrieved by the directions made by the Tribunal, the

present respondents filed the Writ Petition (C) Nos.728/2013,

729/2013, 730/2013 and 732/2013 against the four petitioners.

7. These writ petitions raised a common issue of law and fact

which were dismissed by the common judgment dated 12th

February, 2014 which has been assailed before us. Mr.Varun

Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

award of the Tribunal holding that the restriction of age relaxation

to 15 years being violative of Section 23 of the Contract Act as it

was opposed to public policy, cannot be faulted and deserves to be

upheld. It is urged that for this reason, the judgment of the learned

Single Judge cannot withhold scrutiny in the present appeals.

8. It is undisputed before us that the petitioners laid no

challenge to the Recruitment Rules, 2007 which provide not only

the eligibility conditions but also prescribe the method of

recruitment. These rules clearly prescribe the age limit of 30 years

for direct recruits which was relaxable in the case of anganwadi

workers for the period they had worked on the post under a

Government institution subject to a maximum of 15 years. Thus,

in case an anganwadi worker met the essential educational and

other qualifications, then they were entitled to be considered for

appointment to the direct recruitment post of supervisor upto the

age of 45 years.

9. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the

pronouncement of the Supreme Court in (2007) 10 SCC 260

entitled Rajasthan Public Commission vs. Kaila Kumar Paliwal

and Another to hold that recruitment has to be made in terms of

the rules in vogue. The learned Single Judge has also found that

the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and enlarged the scope of the

reference in holding that the clause of age relaxation in recruitment

rules was unconscionable . The claim made by the workmen was

premised on the recruitment rules and the reference by the

appropriate government set out the boundaries of the consideration

by the Industrial Tribunal. It has been rightly held that the

Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.

For all these reasons we find no merit in these writ petitions

which are hereby dismissed.

10. So far as the grievance of the anganwadi workers that they

would stagnate on the same post with the same scale without any

channel of promotion or financial upgradation is concerned, we

find that in para 13 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has

granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondents for

appropriate relief and remedy. It is directed that as and when the

respondents are approached by the petitioners in this regard, the

respondents shall expeditiously consider the requests of the

petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon.

GITA MITTAL, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J MAY 23, 2014 rb