Delhi High Court
Chandra Kumari vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 28 July, 2016
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Dated: 28th July, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 9953/2015
CHANDRA KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sudershan Rajan and Mr.Rajeev
Khurana, Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD with
Mr.Shubhanshu Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 7th September, 2015 by which O.A. filed by the
petitioner stands dismissed.
2. In this case, an advertisement was published in the Employment News of
11-17th May, 2013 by the Delhi Police inviting applications for direct
recruitment to the posts of Assistant Sub Inspector (Radio Technician). It is the
case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied as a departmental candidate as
per Rule 7 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, as
per which 50% of the vacancies were to be filled up by promotion. Out of 50%
of direct quota, 10% of the posts were to be filled up through departmental
candidates, i.e. Constables, Head Constables and Assistant Sub Inspectors of not
more than 30 years of age having requisite qualifications through the
examination.
3. The petitioner claims to have applied for the said post. Reliance is placed
on the copy of the admit card which has been placed on record, which shows
that he applied as a departmental candidate. The case of the petitioner is that
despite qualifying the written test and the trade test, he was not issued the
appointment letter for the said post. What is sought to be urged before us today
by learned counsel for the respondents is that Rule 7 would not be applicable to
the facts of the present case and the posts were to be filled up 50% by direct
recruitment and 50% by promotion. He further clarifies that according to the
stand of the respondents the departmental candidates could appear under direct
recruitment as there was no bar for the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were 41 vacancies in
total and barring 10%, i.e. quota for departmental candidates, all vacancies were
filled. Thus, the stand of the respondents is not borne out from the record.
5. Counsel for both parties are in agreement that all these issues were not
decided by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents explains that the
stand of the department could not be placed before the Tribunal as the counter
affidavit was not filed and the matter was decided at the admission stage itself.
6. As agreed, the impugned order dated 7th September, 2015 passed by the
Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh
hearing. The matter will be listed before the Tribunal on 11th August, 2016. The
Tribunal will grant an opportunity to the respondents to file their counter
affidavit/reply and after hearing both the parties shall decide the matter in
accordance with law. It is clarified that we have not expressed any expression of
opinion on the merits of this case.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
G.S.SISTANI
(JUDGE)
I.S. MEHTA
(JUDGE)
JULY 28, 2016/'dc'
