Delhi High Court
Sh. Babu Lal vs Commissioner, South Delhi ... on 29 January, 2020
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th January, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 942/2020 & CM APPL. No. 3020/2020
SH. BABU LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Tiwari, Adv.
versus
COMMISSIONER, SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. B.S. Dhir & Ms. Yashika
Vij, Advs. for SDMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.12.2018 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal') by which O.A.
No. 953/2015 filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground
of delay and latches.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is
covered by order dated 05.06.2009 rendered by the Tribunal in the
case of Shashi & Ors. vs. Commissioner & Ors., TA No. 163/2009,
where identical question had arisen.
3. It is further contended that the order of the Tribunal is an order
in-rem. Counsel also submits that the order of the Tribunal was
assailed before the High Court and the writ petition was dismissed
vide order dated 07.09.2009; against which SLP was filed, which was
also dismissed vide judgment dated 20.01.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in
approaching the Tribunal has been well-explained. According to him,
the petitioner did not take independent action as he was waiting for
the final outcome of the SLP which was pending against the order of
the Division Bench of this court.
5. He submits that after the SLP was dismissed vide order dated
20.01.2015, he made a representation to the respondents. However,
since no relief was granted, he filed the O.A before the Tribunal.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order dated
05.06.2009 was in-rem there was no necessity for the petitioner to
approach the Tribunal individually. He also submits that the Tribunal
has itself treated its order dated 05.06.2009 as an order in-rem.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this petition.
Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the
order passed by the Tribunal; and that the order of the Tribunal
cannot be treated as an order in-rem since the facts of this case must
be decided on their own merits. He further submits that no relief can
be granted to the petitioner since the petitioner did not approach the
Tribunal, knowing fully well that an order had been passed by the
Tribunal in the case of other applicants; which is evident from the
fact that the petitioner has submitted that he was waiting for the
outcome of the SLP arising from that other matter.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
considered their submissions.
8. The facts of the case are that the respondent had invited an
application for the post of primary teachers in erstwhile MCD
schools in July 1996. The petitioner had applied for the said post as
an OBC candidate. However, no appointment letter was issued due to
non-fulfillment of the criteria of date of birth.
9. Some of the candidates, who were also rejected, approached
the Tribunal by way of TA No. 163/2009, which was allowed as far
back on 05.06.2009. Another TA was also decided in favour of some
other applicants. Meanwhile W.P.(C) 11331/2009 was preferred by
the respondents challenging the Tribunal's order, which writ petition
was also dismissed as far back on 07.09.2009. An SLP filed against
the High Court order was also dismissed since no one had appeared
for the petitioner.
10. In our view, the explanation rendered by the petitioner for the
delay is neither adequate nor tenable. As the advertisement relates
back to the year 1996, to say that the order of the Tribunal passed in
the year 2009 is an order in-rem and that the petitioner was awaiting
the outcome of an SLP filed by some other applicants, who had
diligently pursued their rights, is not acceptable. The petitioner
cannot be offered a job which was declined to him in the year 1996-
98. On the issue of the O.A. being dismissed as being barred by the
limitation, we agree with the Tribunal, since taking a different view
would be to encourage lack of diligence, apart from having a serious
impact on the rights of many other candidates who would have been
appointed from the year 1998 onwards.
11. In our view the Tribunal has correctly applied the law to the
facts of the case.
12. We find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal; and the writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
13. Pending application also stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
JANUARY 29, 2020/uj
