Dr M M A Faridi vs Delhi University And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 6687 Del

$~9
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 1780/2017
      DR M M A FARIDI                                   ..... Petitioner
               Through:          Ms.Filza Moonis, Adovcate

                                 versus

      DELHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS                 ..... Respondents
               Through: Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Mr.Prang Newami
                        and Ms.Slomita Rai, Advocates for R-1 to
                        R-3

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                    ORDER

% 23.11.2017

This is second round of litigation for petitioner who has now retired as Director-Professor from GTB Hospital, Delhi. In the first round of litigation, it was directed that petitioner be provided personal hearing to seek redressal of his grievance regarding the seniority list of 29 th May, 2015 and it was granted. In terms of the order passed in the first round of litigation, impugned order of 14th February, 2017 (Annexure P-31) has been rendered, reiterating the seniority position of fourth respondent.

It is matter of record that the date of joining of fourth respondent was 8th March, 1997 whereas petitioner had joined the Department of Paediatrics on 15th March, 1997.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No.4 had joined service on 10th March, 1997 and petitioner was initially inducted into

W.P.(C) No.1780/2017 Page 1 service a year prior to respondent No.4 and so the impugned seniority list of 29th May, 2015 (Annexure P-17) deserves to be modified by putting petitioner senior to respondent No.4. Attention of this Court is drawn by petitioner's counsel to appointment letter of 10th March, 1997 (Annexure P-

14) of respondent No.4 to point out that the said appointment was in continuation to the previous regular service rendered as a Reader and though the offer of appointment was made with effect from 8 th March, 1997 but the joining of respondent No.4 was on 10th March, 1997.

To show that petitioner had joined as a Reader with the Respondent- Institute on 15th April, 1988, attention is drawn to petitioner's Joining Report (Annexure P-2) and also to joining report (Annexure P-4) of respondent No.4 to show that respondent No.4 had also joined as a Reader in Respondent-Institute on 1st June, 1989. So, petitioner claims seniority from 15th April, 1988 and asserts that he is senior to respondent No.4.

On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3 submits that this petition is barred by delay and laches as in the combined seniority list (Annexure P-1 to the counter filed by respondent No.3) notified on 11th March, 2005 and again on 13th February, 2009, petitioner was shown junior to respondent No.4 but no objections were filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by respondent's counsel that the so-called seniority list of 29th May, 2015 (Annexure P-17) was never circulated as it was for respondent's internal purpose and so the petitioner has no right to assail the purported seniority list (Annexure P-17). It is also submitted on behalf of respondents that though petitioner was senior to respondent No.4 in cadre of Readers but selection for Professor's post in question was through open advertisement i.e. direct appointment and so the benefit of seniority as a Reader cannot be

W.P.(C) No.1780/2017 Page 2 extended to petitioner and the reference in the appointment letter regarding it being 'in continuation with the previous service as a Reader' was only for the purpose of retiral benefits etc. After having considered the submissions advanced by both the sides and on perusal of impugned order (Annexure P-3), the material on record, I find that petitioner's claim for seniority is based upon the service rendered in the cadre of Reader which cannot be counted towards Professor's post as the selection for the post of Professor was by way of direct appointment. In the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner has no case to stake claim of being senior to fourth respondent. Otherwise also, this petition is hit by delay and laches as petitioner had not filed any objections to the actual seniority list notified on 11th March, 2005 and again on 13th February, 2009.

Consequently this petition is dismissed being barred by delay and laches as well as on merits while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

                                                           (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                              JUDGE


NOVEMBER 23, 2017
mamta




W.P.(C) No.1780/2017                                                    Page 3