Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Delhi And Anr. vs Dinesh And Ors. on 22 October, 2024
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 971/2020 and CM APPLs. 3136/2020 & 24951/2022
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ANR. .....Petitioner
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya
Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advs.
versus
DINESH AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Mr.
Ajit Kumar Ekka and Mr. R.S.M. Kalky,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 22.10.2024
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The issue in controversy in this writ petition is fully covered by
the judgment of this bench in DSSSB v Dinesh Mahawar1.
2. The respondents are Scheduled Caste2 candidates, who applied
for recruitment Teacher (Primary) in the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi3 , pursuant to advertisement 02/2008. The castes to which they
belong are, however, certified as Scheduled Castes outside Delhi. The
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7057 (DB)
SC
MCD
respondents sought to avail the benefit of SC reservation while
seeking recruitment as Teacher (Primary) in the MCD. As they were
registered as SCs outside Delhi, the respondents were not considered
for recruitment against the reserve SC vacancies. As they could not
meet the merit for the General category candidates, they were not
selected.
3. The respondents approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal4 by way of individual Original Applications5. The OAs were
disposed of, by the learned Tribunal, by order dated 6 November
2013, directing the petitioner DSSSB to consider the case of the
respondents and take a recent decision thereon. By orders dated 21
January 2013 and 19 May 2040, the DSSSB rejected the respondents
claims.
4. The respondents, therefore, be approached the learned Tribunal
by way of OA 913/2016, which stands allowed by the learned
Tribunal by the impugned judgement dated 30 July 2019. Aggrieved
thereby, the DSSSB has approached this Court, under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
5. In allowing the respondents' OA, the learned Tribunal followed
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bir Singh v Delhi Jal Board6,
specifically reproducing in the following para from the said decision:
"61. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to in terms of
"the learned Tribunal"
OAs
(2018) 10 SCC 312
the views expressed in 34 of his opinion. We further hold that so
far as the National Capital Territory of Delhi is concerned the pan
India Reservation Rule in force is on record with the constitutional
scheme relating to services under the Union and the States/Union
Territories."
6. Besides, the issue is also covered by two other Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Deepak Kumar v District & Sessions
Judge7 and DSSSB v Vishnu Kumar Badetia8. Following these
decisions, we have, in our judgment in Dinesh Mahawar, dismissed
the writ petition filed by the DSSSB in a case identical to the present.
7. Following the judgment of this Bench in DSSSB v Dinesh
Mahawar, this writ petition is also, therefore, dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
OCTOBER 22, 2024/yg
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
2012 SCC OnLine Del 4794
2024 SCC OnLine Del 6371
