Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Rajender Swaroop Sharma on 22 July, 2024
Author: Suresh Kumar Kait
Bench: Suresh Kumar Kait
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.07.2024
+ W.P.(C) 9863/2024
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Divya Swami, Standing Counsel
versus
RAJENDER SWAROOP SHARMA .....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CM APPL. 40466/2024 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9863/2024 & CM APPL.40465/2024 (stay)
3. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following prayer:
"Issue appropriate writ and set aside 'impugned order dated
22.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal in T.A.
No. 0002 of 2015 titled as Rajender Swaroop Singh vs Municipal
Corporation Of Delhi & Ors".
W.P.(C) 9863/2024 Page 1 of 5 pages
4. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the Learned
Tribunal failed to consider that the respondent is junior to his colleagues as
per the seniority list published in 1979 and the final seniority list published
in 1994 and hence, he is not entitled for promotion or financial benefits at
par with the others on the basis of tentative seniority list.
5. The respondent was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (PET)
in the education department of the Petitioner Corporation on 02.08.1974.
The present petitioner, being respondent No.1 before the Learned Tribunal,
on 05.08.1991 prepared a tentative seniority list of the PETs employed upto
the year 1990 and the name of the present respondent appeared at Serial
No.3, while the names of the other respondents No.2 to 8 therein were
shown at Serial No.12, 14, 16, 17, 20 and 22 respectively. By virtue of the
said list, the present respondent being senior to respondent No. 2 to 8
therein, and his name appearing at Serial No.3 in the seniority list prepared
for the purpose of promotion and selection grade, as claimed he was entitled
to be promoted earlier to respondents No.2 to 8 therein, however, they were
given higher grade and promotion by superseding the present respondent.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that
on 02.06.1979, a list of PETs was prepared and the name of the respondent
appeared at Serial No. 22. Thereafter, a tentative list was published in 1991
which showed the respondent at Serial No. 3, upon which the entire claim of
the respondent lies. However, such seniority list was merely a tentative list
which was open to objections. In pursuance of the objections received,
certain amendments were made and the final seniority list was published
W.P.(C) 9863/2024 Page 2 of 5 pages
wherein the respondent came at Serial No. 20, which ought to be considered
by the learned Tribunal.
7. The case of the present respondent before the learned Tribunal was
that respondent being senior to respondents No.2 to 8 therein is entitled to
higher grade and financial benefits granted to them. On 01.11.1990, the
present petitioner prepared a seniority list of male and female teachers which
was filed before this Court in WP(C) No.870/1987 titled Puran Mal & Ors.
vs MCD & Ors. The present respondent preferred a representation on
23.04.2003 seeking promotion in the higher grade as given to his juniors
followed by a legal notice upon the present petitioner seeking the same relief
on 30.05.2005, but to no avail.
8. The present petitioner filed a reply as well as written submissions.
The petitioner submitted that on 02.06.1979, a list of PETs was prepared and
the name of the respondent appeared at Serial No. 22. Further on
05.08.1991, a tentative seniority list of PETs was prepared, wherein the
name of the respondent appeared at Serial No.3 and respondents No.2 to 8
therein appeared at Serial Nos.12,14,16,17,20 and 22. On the basis of
Education Department's order dated 25.02.1994, after removing the
objections, a final seniority list was prepared on 03.03.1994, in which the
name of the respondent appeared at Serial No.20 whereas respondents No.2
to 8 therein were placed at Serial Nos.3,5,9,2,11, 4 and 1 respectively.
9. In support of her arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
petitioner that the respondent himself admitted that he had challenged only
the tentative list and not the final list. She submitted that the present TA
W.P.(C) 9863/2024 Page 3 of 5 pages
which was filed before the learned Tribunal was also allowed on 08.05.2019
in favour of the petitioner holding that the respondent is junior to the
respondents No.2 to 8 therein. It was for the first time in the year 2022
before this Court in WP(C) No. 5535/2022 that the respondent stated that he
filed a representation dated 12.04.1994 against the final seniority list dated
03.03.1994 and that the order/judgment of the learned Tribunal was
incorrect, holding that the respondent did not challenge the final seniority
list. The contention of the present respondent, having filed representation
dated 12.04.1994, was clearly an afterthought as neither any such averment
was made by the respondent in his legal notice dated 30.05.2005 nor are
there any pleadings with respect to the same before the Civil Court in his
suit.
10. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions of the
parties and the material on record, observed that none of the findings of the
Learned Civil Judge, as recorded in para 8 of the order of the learned
Tribunal, have been controverted by the MCD. The petitioner MCD has
confined its case to the fact that the respondent has not placed challenge to
the final seniority list of 1994, and no representation was filed thereto by the
respondent.
11. The learned Tribunal observed that the tentative seniority list clearly
shows that the respondent and the private respondents therein have been
appointed on the same date, and by virtue of the date of birth of the
respondent being earlier, he was placed at serial no 3. The said fact has not
been disputed. Inspite of several opportunities extended to the MCD, they
W.P.(C) 9863/2024 Page 4 of 5 pages
did not lead any evidence in the Suit, and therefore, the evidence led by the
respondent remained un-rebutted.
12. It is not in dispute that no evidence has been placed on record by the
present petitioner that the respondent herein was not similarly placed to the
private respondents No.2 to 8 or that he was junior to the said private
respondents. Moreover, no questions have been put to the PWs to this
effect.
13. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order
passed by learned Tribunal and accordingly find no merit in the present
petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
(GIRISH KATHPALIA)
JUDGE
JULY 22, 2024/as
W.P.(C) 9863/2024 Page 5 of 5 pages
