Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Aditya vs Delhi Development Authority (Dda) on 8 March, 2024
1
Item No. 19
Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 2492/2022
This the 08th day of March, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
1. Aditya, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 29 years
S/o Sh. Rajesh Arora
R/o West Jyoti Nagar, Delhi-110094
2. Prince Dhiman, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Balwant Singh Dhiman
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
3. Atul Minhas, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 29 years
S/o Sh. Vipendra Singh Minhas
R/o C7/38, SDA, New Delhi-110016
4. Shahrookh Ali, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 28 years
S/o Sh. Sher Ali
R/o 36/B, Pocket-III, Phase-I, Mayur Vihar, Delhi-110091
5. Ayush Chauhan, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 31 years
S/o Ajay Kumar Chauhan
R/o Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070
6. Saransh Bhardwaj, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma
R/o Durga Puri Extn. Delhi-110093
7. Siddhat Jain, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 29 years
S/o Sh. Abhay Kumar Jain
R/o Flat No. 10, DDA
Staff Quarters, Ber Sarai, New Delhi-110016
2
Item No. 19
Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022
8. Ankit Kumar Dhaka, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Hukama Ram Dhaka
R/o 166-A/A2, Keshavpuram, Delhi-110035
9. Rizwan Husain, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 29 years
S/o Sh. Mohammad Jaan
R/o Mayur Vihar, Delhi 110091
10. Harshit Saxena, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar Saxena
R/o Mayur Vihar, Delhi-110091
11. Madhuban Bhai Patel, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 31 years
S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Prasad
R/o C7/SDA, Hauz Khas-110016
12. Hafeez Ahmad, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Shakil Ahmed
R/o Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070
13. Atul Jain, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 29 years
S/o Sh. Nirmal Kumar Jain
R/o C-7/36, SDA, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016
14. Samarpan Jain, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Jain
R/o B-9, LIG Masoodpur, Delhi-110070
15. Mohit Tyagi, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 29 years
S/o Sh. Umesh Kumar Tyagi
R/o Kesri Mohalla, Shahdara, Delhi-110032
16. Nipun Kumar, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 29 years
S/o Sh. Sudesh kumar
R/o Gokalpuri, Delhi-110094
17. Chandra Prakash Meena, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Moji Ram Meena, R/o Ber Sarai-110016
3
Item No. 19
Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022
18. Karan Gupta, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 27 years
S/o Sh. Bhupinder Gupta
R/o Lawrence Road, New Delhi-110034
19. Dhivyanshu Shekhar Bhardwaj
Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Madhav Kumar Jha
R/o C-7/55, SDA, Usha Niketan, Hauz Khas
New Delhi-110016
20. Saleem Khan, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Nisar Mohammad Khan
R/o 35-C, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Pocket-3, Delhi-110091
21. Shubham Srivastav, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 27 years
S/o Sh. Kamal Kumar Srivastav
R/o Flat 102, C-7, SDA Hauz Khas, Delhi-110016
22. Niteesh Agrawal, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Agrawal
R/o 31-C, Pocket-3, Phase-I, Mayur Vihar, Delhi-110091
23. Mahendra Singh, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Rajendra Singh
R/o SDA, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016
24. Naveen Kumar, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 29 years
S/o Sh. Gonar Mahto
R/o Flat No. 75 DDA Staff Quarter
Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110016
25. Mayur Uttam, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Vinod Uttam
R/o 35-B, Pocket-3, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091
26. Amardeep Kumar, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 26 years
S/o Sh. Ram Kishore
R/o 187-B, Pocket I Mayur Vihar, Phase I Delhi-110091
4
Item No. 19
Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022
27. Rajesh Gangwar, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 29 years
S/o Sh. Madan Lal
R/o 188-A, Pocket-I, Mayur Vihar, Phase I Delhi 110091
28. Abhishek Kumar, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 32 years
S/o Sh. Ramveer Singh
R/o 36-C, Pocket 3, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091
29. Sanjay Yadav, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 32 years
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Yadav
R/o C-7/51, SDA, Hauz Khas, Delhi-110016
30. Satyendra Kumar Singh, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 29 years
S/o Sh. Prem Prakash Singh
R/o Flat C-7/75, SDA, Hauz Khas, Delhi 110016
31. Suraj Shivhare, Assistant Engineer (Civil) (B)
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Moolchand Shivhare
R/o Room No-13, CWG Village, Sports Complex, DDA
Akshardham, Delhi-11009
... Applicants
(By ADVOCATE: Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj with Sh. Maria Mugesh)
VERSUS
1. The Vice Chairman
Delhi Development Authority
B Block First Floor, Vikas Sadan
INA New Delhi-110023
2. The Commissioner
Delhi Development Authority
B Block First Floor, Vikas Sadan
INA New Delhi-110023
3. The Member (Engineering)
B-316, DDA (Personnel Branch-III)
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Arun Birbal with Sh. Varun Gupta and Sh.
Sanjay Singh)
5
Item No. 19
Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) issued a vacancy notification dated 09.07.2022 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) (Civil). The method of recruitment specified in the said Advertisement was to determine the merit of the candidates on the basis of their Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) Examination score, 2021. It is this vacancy notification which has caused anguish to the applicants on the primary ground that provision of GATE score, 2021 is an extraneous provision incorporated by the DDA in contravention to the Recruitment Rules. Further, the Advertisement which has been issued in the month of July, 2022 relied upon the GATE score of 2021 which has deprived a large number of candidates including the present applicants from seeking participation in the selection process for the post of AEE (Civil). Ventilating their grievances and placing a challenge upon the said notification, the applicants have approached the Tribunal through this OA praying for the following reliefs:
6Item No. 19 Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022
"(i) to quash and set aside the impugned Advertisement No. 05/2022/Rectt.
Cell/Pers/DDA dated 09.07.2022.
(ii) to declare the action of the respondents in filling up the posts of AEE vide advertisement dated 09.07.2022 (A-1) on the basis of GATE Score 2021 as illegal and unjustified and direct the respondents to fill up the notified vacancies of AEE by affording equal opportunity of participation to the applicant as well as all other candidates eligible for appointment to the post of AEE in DDA as per Recruitment Rules.
(iii)To direct the respondents to fill up the post of AEE through UPSC or through any other authority as specified in Recruitment Rules and not through an examination conducted prior to even issuance of advertisement.
(iv)to allow the OA with cost.
(v)pass any further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the applicants, briefly narrating the background and history of the case submits that the provision of GATE score of 2021 has been inserted arbitrarily and abruptly without disclosing this intent on a prior date to enable the aspirants for the post to appear in the GATE examination and obtain an appropriate score. He submits that in the previous round of recruitment to the post, a communication to this effect was made public which had given a fair opportunity to the prospective candidates to appear in the selection process 7 Item No. 19 Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022 for further recruitment in the DDA. However, this practice was not adhered to in the 2022 notification which is the subject of this OA. Thus, the bonafide rights of the applicants have been adversely affected.
3. Although several grounds have been enunciated while placing challenge to the notification, we find that by and large there is a singular ground being repeated and that ground is that the impugned notification is violative of Articles 14 and 16 as also Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Explaining, learned counsel draws our attention to the Recruitment Rules of the post, specifically to the column which provides for method of recruitment. The method provided for in the Recruitment Rules is "by direct recruitment through UPSC or by any other agency as deemed fit by the Authority". Learned counsel would argue that the only interpretation of this provision could be that the respondents were obliged to hold a selection examination before making any selection and appointment. By making the selection through GATE score of 2021, it is apparent that selection had already been made prior to the Advertisement, in violation of the method provided for in the Recruitment Rules, he adds. Learned counsel draws 8 Item No. 19 Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022 strength from a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A. No. 979/2014 titled Renu and others vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and another, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed as under:
"...6. Article 14 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity. It forms the cornerstone of our Constitution.
XXX XXX XXX
8. As Article 14 is an integral part of our system, each and every state action is to be tested on the touchstone of equality. Any appointment made in violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is not only irregular but also illegal and cannot be sustained in view of the judgments rendered by this Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P., J.A.S. Inter College v. State of U.P., M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. S.C. Pandey, and State of M.P. v. Sandhya Tomar.
XXX XXX XXX
14. In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, this Court dealt with the constitutional principle of providing equality of opportunity to all which mandatorily requires that vacancy must be notified in advance meaning thereby that information of the recruitment must be disseminated in a reasonable manner in public domain ensuring maximum participation of all eligible candidates, thereby the right of equal opportunity is effectuated. The Court held as under:-
"36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any 9 Item No. 19 Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022 appointment is made by merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note on the noticeboard, etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit."
XXX XXX XXX
17. Thus, the aforesaid decisions are an authority on prescribing the limitations while making appointment against public posts in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. What has been deprecated by this Court time and again is "backdoor appointments or appointment de hors the rules"
4. Learned counsel reiterates that time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court has emphatically stressed upon ensuring transparency and fairness in selection to a public post and enjoins upon the public authorities to ensure strict adherence to the letter and spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents is violative as it deprives a large number of qualified candidates from an opportunity of participation in a fair and transparent process 10 Item No. 19 Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022 by arbitrarily incorporating a condition, that too abruptly and without prior notice.
5. On the other hand, Sh. Arun Birbal, learned counsel for the respondents, relying upon the specific averment made in the counter reply vehemently contests the arguments recorded in the OA and put forth by the learned counsel for the applicants. He draws our special attention to paragraph (ii) of the counter reply explaining the background of the matter. Highlighting the fact that it was as far back as on 05.10.2012, when the authority had taken a conscious decision that the procedure for recruitment to the post of AEE (C) will be through GATE score to the extent of 85% weightage followed by interview with 15% weightage. He further submits that the following paragraph of the counter reply i.e. paragraph (iii) outlines the entire scheme of the examination. For the sake of clarity, these paragraphs of counter reply are reproduced verbatim:
"(ii)That the 'Authority' vide agenda item no 73 dated 05.10.2012 had approved the procedure for recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) through GATE score (weightage 85%) followed by interview (weightage 15%) of the candidates shortlisted on the basis of performance of the candidates in GATE examination.11 Item No. 19 Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022
(iii). That the Vice Chairman, DDA, being the competent authority gave in principle approval for filing up of vacant post of 08 (revised) of AEE (Civil) with vacancies in other cadres vide office note dated 23.09.2021 on the basis of GATE 2021 followed by interview. Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi accorded his approval vide note 25.10.2021 for the same along with other vacancies. Organizing Chairperson, GATE-2021 (IIT Bombay) was then requested to provide the GATE 2021 score for Civil stream vide email dated 09.09.2021. In response, Secretary, GATE vide email dated 29.10.2021 had forwarded the draft MOU for information. Thereafter MOU was signed by Commissioner (Personnel), DDA and Organizing Chairperson, GATE 2021 and received by DDA on 26.11.2021 with a request for making payment so that result can be shared with DDA. DDA accordingly paid Rs.
26,55,000/- to IIT, Bombay on 30.11.2021 so that the result may be shared with DDA vide their letter dated 06.12.2021. DDA also entered into a MoU with M/s EdCIL (India) Ltd. on 20.12.2021 for end-to-end conduct of recruitment. It was also decided to have MOPS with SBI for deposit of payment of application fee online by the candidates. MoU with SBI was signed on 24.05.2022 after getting the draft MoU vetted from Finance and Legal Department, DDA. Thereafter, the matter went into finalization of detailed recruitment notification and submission of security audit certificate by M/s EdCIL (India) Ltd. Later on, it was decided to issue two advertisements one for AEE (Civil) and second for other 06 posts separately having Computer Based Test and interview wherever applicable. Notification no 05/2022/Rectt. Cell/Pers./DDA was published in Employment News and other newspapers calling online application from the eligible candidates w.e.f. 09.07.20222 to 08.08.2022 for AEE 12 Item No. 19 Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022 (Civil). Total 232 applications have been received. The Competent Authority has approved the constitution of Interview board. The Combined merit list (CML) is being provided shortly by the agency. Interview for shortlisted candidates is tentatively scheduled in the month of October, 2022."
6. Sh. Birbal, learned counsel highlights the term "Authority", submitting that the power is vested in the "Authority" and not in any individual, and the Authority here would be as constituted under the DDA Act. He further submits that even the Recruitment Rules empower the Authority to choose any agency for recruitment as deemed fit. Therefore, the action of the respondents of relying upon the GATE score of 2021 for recruitment to the post of AEE (Civil) is strictly in adherence to the Recruitment Rules, further supported by the powers vested in the Authority under law.
7. Sh. Birbal, learned counsel has also drawn our attention to a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP(C) No. 11026 and 9491 of 2022 titled Elambarathy. S (in WP No. 11026 of 2022) and V.B. Abhishiek Raj (in WP No. 9491/2022) wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held that prescription of GATE score for recruitment cannot be put to challenge as nowhere has this 13 Item No. 19 Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022 prescription been prohibited. Sh. Birbal has also argued that pursuant to the notification which is the subject of this OA, necessary selection process has culminated into appointment of the meritorious and eligible candidates. Therefore, no adjudication upon the prayer of the applicants could be made in this OA unless the selected persons are impleaded as a party in this litigation. He too has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court titled Ranjan Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2014) 16 SCC 187, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that in the absence of the impleadment of the appointed persons, the Writ Petition could not have been considered nor any relief granted. He would reiterate that the decision to make recruitment through GATE score was taken in the year 2012 and subsequent recruitments whenever made, were strictly on the basis of this decision. Merely because the applicants had never participated in the GATE examination and did not have a GATE score available with them, does not vest any right upon them, nor does it entitle them to question this methodology.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length on quite a few occasions. We have also gone 14 Item No. 19 Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022 through the voluminous pleadings on record and further we have given more than careful reading to the judgments cited by the learned counsels.
9. At the outset, we would like to mention that all the applicants are already working in the DDA as Assistant Engineers. Further, the recruitment to the post of AEE(C) is not being made through promotion but as a direct recruitment. Therefore, the applicants herein cannot claim any preferential treatment. If they are holding a responsible and important position in the DDA, there would be a logical presumption that they are aware of the Rules and Regulations of their organization. In fact, the list of dates and events given in the OA makes it abundantly clear that the applicants are aware as to the methodology prescribed for recruitment/appointment to the post of AEE (Civil). This methodology has never been under challenge; and even in the rejoinder affidavit, it has been specifically stated that no challenge at any time has been put to this methodology.
10. Recruitment, followed by appointment, is to be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the notified Recruitment Rules. We have already quoted the relevant 15 Item No. 19 Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022 extract of the Recruitment Rules in one of the preceding paragraphs. We would like to repeat that methodology for direct recruitment, as contained in the Recruitment Rules, is through UPSC or "by any other agency". If the respondents have taken a conscious decision and the authority to take such a decision vests in them, they were within their right to choose GATE as one of the methodologies in terms of this provision in the Recruitment Rules, as it expressly authorizes them to select "any other agency". Further, the Rule goes on to state that the agency chosen will be "as deemed fit by Authority".
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has clarified and it has been specifically stated in paragraph (ii) of the counter reply that this has been the decision of the "Authority". There is nothing to the contrary to even hint that the decision has not been taken by way of an agenda before the Authority. Accordingly, it would have been taken after taking into consideration the entire gamut of facts and issues. Further, the decision is alive and kicking as on date. This decision has been uniformly applied across the board, and on the basis of the record and the arguments put forth before us, we find that no challenge to this decision has been put so far. Even in the 16 Item No. 19 Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022 previous round of recruitment, this decision was not questioned, and in the present one also, what is being time and again emphasized is that the GATE score of 2021 is the bone of contention; the applicants argue that they did not have sufficient notice that they are required to appear in GATE and obtain an appropriate score. To our specific query to the learned counsels, it transpires that the applicants herein have not participated in any of the GATE examinations till date and further on the date of issuance of the impugned vacancy notification, the latest GATE scores available were of 2021.
12. We have no hesitation in opining that the respondents were within their right and authority to choose GATE as one of the methodologies in terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules and if they have done so, it does not warrant any interference from us. Further, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants primarily revolve around the issue of equality and equity in terms of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is not even an iota of doubt in our mind that no principle of equality or equity has been violated or that there is any evidence on 17 Item No. 19 Court-2 OA No. 2492/2022 record which should cast any doubt on the fairness and transparency of the entire selection process.
13. In view of what has been elaborately detailed and discussed above, we hold the OA to be devoid of any merit and accordingly dismiss it.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Tarun Shridhar) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/NS/