Delhi High Court
Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 November, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 18th November, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 10454/2015 & C.M. 26240/2015
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey,
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari &
Mr. Devender Kumar Shukla,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunieta Ojha, Advocate for
respondents No.1 to 3
Mr. B. K. Sood, Mr. Shivam
Rawat & Mr. Gaurav Garg,
Advocates for respondents No.4 &
5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (O R A L)
The first prayer made in this petition is to quash the impugned
Advertisement of July, 2015 regarding direct recruitment to the post of
Assistant Director (Hindi) in the establishment of respondent No.5 -
Bureau of Indian Standards.
The second prayer made in this petition is to direct the first
respondent to grant approval to the new RRs, which provide that 2/3
posts are to be filled by promotion and 1/3 posts by direct recruitment. In
the third prayer, formation of a separate Cadre of Official Language in
service in undertaking/ institutes/ subordinates/ attaches offices falling
under Ministry of Consumer Affairs including Bureau of Indian
Standards (henceforth referred to as the 'BIS') and issuance of
Notification in this respect is sought.
In the fourth prayer, a declaration that the existing regulations
being ultra vires was sought but this prayer was given up by petitioner's
counsel and it is so recorded in the order of 6th November, 2015.
In the fifth prayer, a direction is also sought to respondents No. 4 &
5 to consider the case of petitioners No. 2 & 3 as eligible candidates for
the interview to be conducted for the post of Assistant Director (Hindi).
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that he
does not press the fourth and fifth prayers made in this petition, as
interviews have been already conducted. It is informed by learned
counsel for petitioner that the result of the interview to the post of
Assistant Director (Hindi) stands declared on 16 th November, 2015 but
till date, the successful candidates have not joined.
In pursuance to the last order, first petitioner has filed affidavit on
behalf of petitioners No. 2 and 3 as well. Learned counsel for petitioners
submits that this affidavit be treated to be filed on behalf of all the three
petitioners. Let it be so done.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had
drawn attention of this Court to the Resolutions (Annexures P-1 & P-2)
and had submitted that vide orders (Annexures P-3, P-4 & P-5) direction
has been issued to the concerned authorities for implementing
recommendations regarding formation of separate Cadre of Official
Language Hindi in subordinate offices of the Ministry.
It was pointed out that in the year 2005, first petitioner had made a
Representation (Annexure P-6) to respondent- BIS seeking promotional
avenues for Hindi Translators and attention of this Court is also drawn to
Communication of July, 2006 (Annexure P-7) made to Deputy Director
of BIS and to the higher authorities seeking creation of promotional
avenues for Hindi Translators.
Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the Bureau of Indian
Standards (Terms and Conditions of Service Employees) Regulations,
2007 do not provide promotional avenues for Hindi Translators but it
does provide for other departments.
It is pertinent to note here that challenge to the Regulations of 2007
(Annexure P-9) has been given up by petitioners, as respondent - BIS has
now recommended for promotional avenues to Hindi Translators. The
recommendation of 8th July, 2015 is placed on record as Annexure P-18.
The impugned Advertisement is also issued in July, 2015, which
provides for age relaxation up to the age of 50 years for direct recruitment
of the departmental candidates. Undisputedly, petitioners are above the
age of 50 years.
A Representation (Annexure P-20) was made by first petitioner on
15th July, 2015 seeking that out of two posts of Assistant Director (Hindi),
only one post be filled up and the approval by the Ministry to the
Recommendation (Annexure P-18) be awaited. Learned counsel for
petitioners submitted that the Representation (Annexure P-20) has not
been responded to by respondent -BIS. It is pointed out that
Representations (Annexures P-24 to P-26) similar to (AnnexureP-20)
were also given to the authorities concerned but to no avail.
A fervent prayer was made by petitioner's counsel to restrain the
respondents from filling up one post of Assistant Director (Hindi) so that
Recommendation (Annexure P-18) can be given effect to, otherwise
petitioners would retire on the post of Senior/ Junior Hindi Translators
only. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for petitioners upon
decision in Major General H.M. Singh. VSM Vs. Union of India & ors.
(2014) 3 SCC 670 to submit that right to be considered for promotion is
the fundamental right. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for
petitioners that Rule 12 of The Official Language Act, 1963 provides that
it is the responsibility of Head of each Central Government office to
ensure that provisions of The Official Language Act, 1963 are required to
be properly complied with.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned Advertisement,
material on record and the decision cited, I find that right to be considered
for promotion only accrues when the recruitment rules in respect of the
post of Assistant Director (Hindi) have been approved by the concerned
Ministry. Till date, there is no approval to the proposed Recruitment
Rules (Annexure P-18) and in such a situation, the surviving prayers
made in this petition cannot be granted. Undisputedly, petitioners are not
eligible for being considered for direct recruitment to the post of
Assistant Director (Hindi) because they are over age for this post. No
doubt there are recommendations for providing promotional avenues in
respect of Senior/ Junior Translators but since the challenge to the
existing Regulations (Annexure P-9) have been already given up by
petitioner, therefore, directions sought for in this petition, cannot be
granted. Thus, finding no substance in this petition, it is dismissed while
leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application is
disposed of as infructuous.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 18, 2015
r
