New Delhi Municipal Council vs Sh. Puran
2015 Latest Caselaw 710 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                            Date of hearing & Order: January 27, 2015.
+      W.P.(C) 4968/2014 & CM APPL. Nos.9937-9938/2014

       NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL             .... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate

                          versus

       SH. PURAN                                           ..... Respondent
                          Through:       None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL No. 9938/2014 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4968/2014 & CM No. 9937/2014 (Stay) The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated

09.01.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principle Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT')

whereby the petitioner was directed to regularise the services of the

respondent on the post of Light Motor Vehicle Driver, by relaxing the

educational qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for the said

post. The learned CAT also directed the petitioner to grant all the

consequential benefits to the respondent on such regularisation.

The main contention raised by the petitioner to assail the findings

of the learned CAT is that the learned CAT exceeded its jurisdiction by

giving a direction to the petitioner to relax the educational qualification as

were prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, encroaching upon the domain

of the executive. As per the petitioner, once the learned CAT found that

the respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria laid down in the

Recruitment Rules, it ought not to have passed a direction for

regularisation of services of the respondent.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

In the year 1992, the petitioner had framed Recruitment Rules for

recruitment to the post of Light Motor Vehicle Driver. In the year 1994,

the petitioner had invited applications from Muster Roll Drivers for

appointment to the post of Light Motor Vehicle Drivers cum Fitter. The

respondent, who was a Muster Roll Driver, had applied for the said post.

He had passed the trade test and was also interviewed in January 1994,

however, thereafter he was denied the appointment to the said post on the

ground that he did not possess the educational qualification prescribed in

the Recruitment Rules.

Before the learned CAT, it was admitted by the petitioner that the

educational qualification was relaxed in favour of one Sh. Suraj and his

services were regularised, but the stand taken by the petitioner in the

present petition is that relaxation in the case of Sh. Suraj was granted

pursuant to the judgment dated 13.10.1997 passed by the Civil Court in

Suit bearing No.161/1994.

Apropos the findings of the Civil Court in the case of Sh. Suraj, the

contention raised by the petitioner is that the present respondent was not a

party to the Civil Suit and therefore, the judgment of the learned Civil

Judge would not be of any help in the case of the respondent.

We do not find ourselves in disagreement with the contentions

raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner but we are not convinced

with the answer given him apropos the decision taken by the Selection

Sub-Committee, in the meeting held on 29.08.1990, wherein the

necessary relaxations for regular appointment were granted to some of the

candidates who had qualified in the trade test at the time of their

appointment on muster rolls and had completed 240 days in service on

muster roll in one single year, although they were lacking in educational

qualification and experience or were over age etc.

In the impugned order, there is reference to many such cases where

the relaxation in the Recruitment Rules was allowed for appointment to

the post of Light Motor Vehicle Drivers/ Fitter and based on material

produced on record, the learned CAT took a view that since the petitioner

had on several occasions and particularly in the year 1997 regularised the

services of Muster Roll Drivers by relaxing the educational qualification

prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, there is no reason why this

respondent should be made an exception. The Recruitment Rules lost its

efficacy and force when the department itself breached them. No

Government or public body can be allowed to adopt a pick and choose

policy as regards the implementation of the Recruitment rules.

So far as the facts of the present case is concerned the petitioners

have themselves not strictly adhered to the Recruitment Rules and have

been liberal in granting relaxation in a number of other cases and

therefore, the Tribunal is correct in taking a view that different treatment

should not be given to the respondent who was similarly placed with the

other candidates, to whom necessary relaxation in the Recruitment Rules

with regard to the educational qualification was granted by the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present

writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. All the pending

applications are also dismissed.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J

I.S.MEHTA, J JANUARY 27, 2015 v