Delhi High Court
Lalit Kumar vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 15 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 15, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8508/2015
LALIT KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. K.C. Rakesh, Advocate
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Standing
Counsel EDMC & Mr. Puran Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
1. Petitioner is a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate, who on the basis of
information sought under Right to Information Act, 2005, claims to have
been selected in the SC category for the post of Primary Teacher in
pursuance to Advertisement of 25th January, 2011 (Annexure P-1). As per
Advertisement (Annexure P-1), qualifications and conditions, as
prescribed by the Department of Education in MCD, shall be applicable
for the selection of candidates.
2. In this petition, a mandamus is sought to respondents to declare the
result of interview held on 16th March, 2011 by the Selection Committee
constituted by the second respondent with consequential relief of
petitioner being appointed against SC category post of primary teacher.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents, it is maintained that
the school which had issued Advertisement (Annexure P-1) does not
belong to East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) and the
management of the said school had expressed its inability to run the
school. It is asserted by respondents in the counter affidavit that no
candidate acquires an indefeasible right to post merely because he has
appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list. It is
also the stand of respondents in the counter affidavit that the recruitment
rules for the post of primary teacher are pending notification with the
Urban Development Department and appointments would be made as per
Notification of 25th August, 2015 and till then, respondents will not hold
any interview and the interview so conducted would be cancelled.
4. It is a matter of record that the aforesaid Notification of 25th
August, 2015 has not been placed on record. Learned counsel for
petitioner maintains that there is no such Notification.
5. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that the applicable
recruitment rules/ guide lines will prevail in the absence of approval of
recruitment rules for the post in question by the concerned department
and so, there is no justification to keep pending the interview result and
that respondents be directed to declare the results of the interview held
on 16th March, 2011. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents
maintains that till the recruitment rules are not finalized, no appointment
can be made.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner on instructions submits that Sanatan
Dharam Devnagri Patshala , Shahdara, Delhi is an aided school and the
said school is still functional and so, there is no justification for not
appointing petitioner on the post in question. At this stage, counsel for
respondents clarifies that the Notification is of 23 rd August, 2010 and not
of 25th August, 2015 but inadvertently it is mentioned as 25th August,
2015 in the counter affidavit filed by respondents.
7. Upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record, I find that
there is an ambiguity regarding the factual aspects. That is, whether the
school who had issued the advertisement in question, is functional or not
and respondents are required to clarify as to why the selection already
made in pursuance to advertisement (Annexure P-1) cannot be finalized
in the light of Notification of 25th August, 2015, laying down the
guidelines for making appointment in MCD aided schools. Even if the
school in question is not run by concerned MCD, still as per the counter
affidavit filed by respondents, parity in appointment of teachers in an
aided schools and MCD schools ought to be maintained. The above
aspect needs to be clarified. It needs no clarification that petitioner may
not have vested right but still petitioner has a legitimate expectation to be
employed, particularly when he has been selected.
8. In the above background, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of
this petition with direction to second respondent to look into the above
referred aspects within a period of twelve weeks and thereafter, intimate
petitioner about fate of interview held on 16 th March, 2011. It is also
required to be clarified by respondents that why the guidelines issued by
Government of India on 25th August, 2015 cannot be applied in the case
of petitioner and as to why the recruitment rules, which were not notified
on the date of advertisement in question, would prevail.
9. The fate of interview held on 16th March, 2011 be positively
conveyed to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, with reasons if
petitioner is not appointed. Such a course is being adopted, so that
petitioner may avail of the remedies, as available in law, if need be. It is
also made clear that if the school in question is not functional, then
respondents are not required to carry such exercise, as petitioner's claim
would no longer survive.
10. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
Dasti.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 15, 2018
r
