Delhi High Court
Ansar Alam & Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors. on 12 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998VAD(DELHI)148, 73(1998)DLT706
Author: M.S.A. Siddiqui
Bench: Arun Kumar, M.S.A. Siddiqui
ORDER M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.
1. On 30th June, 1989, applications were invited to fill up the posts of 60 Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Engineering Department of the MCD. The essential qualifications for the post were a): degree in Civil Engineering, b): two years professional experience. Age was not to exceed 30 years (relaxable for government servants and employees of the M.C.D.). In all 412 candidates, departmental as well as those sponsored by the Employment Exchange were called for interveiw. A list (Annexure-A) of these candidates giving their names, date of birth, qualifications, percentage of marks, period of experience and marks allotted for qualifications, experience and interview was prepared. 60 candidates who scored 16 or more marks were selected. Forty-four candidates were placed in the waiting list/reserved list for appointment against vacancies remaining unfilled due to non acceptance of offer of appointment or failure to join duty. Some of the unsuccessful candidates filed Writ Petitions before this Court challenging the selection of these candidates. These writ petitions were decided by the learned single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 10th August, 1994. The writ petition of Shri Surender Negi was allowed but all other writ petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants filed Letter Patent Appeals. Some other candidates filed writ petitions. Since all these appeals and writ petitions raised substantially the same issues and the pleadings in these appeals and writ petitions also followed substantially the same pattern, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. On 23.11.1995, when the LPA Nos. 94-96/94, 113/94 and CW 4819/94 came up for hearing before Hon'ble the Chief Justice M.J. Rao (as he then was) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Dev Singh, it was contended that for the same level of experience different candidates had been given marks differently. On behalf of the MCD, it was conceded that there were some mistakes in the selection process. In the circumstances, this Court appointed Mr. Justice G.C. Jain (Retd.), to verify the case of each candidate and find out whether allocation of marks for the qualification and experience had been correctly done and if not in what manner, it should have been done. Pursuant to this direction, Mr. Justice Jain (Retd.) examined the records of all the candidates who have obtained 12 or more marks and prepared a list (Annexure-E) giving comments regarding each candidate. After scrutiny Mr. Justice Jain prepared list of first 60 candidates (Annexure-F to his report) and list of the next 40 candidates (Annexure-G to his report). He also prepared list of candidates (Annexure-H) who became eligible after 17.7.1989 (cut off date) and 31st July, 1989. He further prepared list of candidates who enrolled themselves after 17.7.1989 and 31.7.1989 (Annexure I(i) and I(ii) to his report). We deem it appropriate to proceed on the basis of the report of Mr. Justice G.C. Jain.
3. It is undisputed that for the selection of Assistant Engineers (Civil) for the year 1988, the selection board prescribed the following criteria for allocation of marks to the candidates;
Total Marks: 35
(a) Qualifications: 20 Marks
Back-Up
Upto 50% marks 10 Marks
55% marks 12 Marks
60% marks 14 Marks
65% marks 16 Marks
70% marks 18 marks
75% marks 20 marks
(b) Experience 5 Marks
Break-up
Upon
2 years experience Nil Marks
One marks for each year's
experience after 2 year's
experience upto 5 years 5 Marks
(c) Viva Voce 10 Marks
4. However, in the present selection (for the year 1989), the selection board prescribed the following criteria for allocation of marks to be awarded to the candidates.
1) Qualfication: 10 Marks
Break-up
Upto 50% marks 5 Marks
51% to 60% marks 6 Marks
61% to 70% marks 7 Marks
71% to 80% marks 8 Marks
81% to 90% marks 9 Marks
91% to 100 marks 10 Marks
(2) Experience: 5 Marks
Break-Up
Upto two year's experience Nil Marks
3 to 12 year's and above experience, 1/2 Marks
for each year of experience upto 5 Marks.
(3) Viva-Voce 15 Marks
At the outset we must make it clear that it is an admitted position that the cut-off date for eligibility for the post in question is 17.7.1989. The following list shows the placement of the candidates in the select list of the M.C.D. as well as the list prepared by Mr. Justice G.C. Jain after verification of the records.
List-A
S. Name of Position Position Marks Marks Remarks
No. the can- in the as per awarded awarded
didate list of list of by the by justice
the Sele of Mr. Selection Jain
ction Justice Board
Board Jain
1. Pradeep 1 1 23-1/2 23-1/2 Prom. Reg.
Bansal
2. Pradeep 3 2 23 23 Prom. Reg
Khandelwal
3. Anil Tyagi 4 5 20 20 Prom. Ad hoc
4. R. K. 5 3 20-1/2 20-1/2 Prom. Ad hoc
Ailahabadi
5. M.S. Rana 6 4 20 20 Prom. Reg
6. R.K. Sharma 7 6 19-1/2 19-1/2 Prom. Reg
7. R.K.Bhatt- 8 9 18-1/2 18-1/2 Prom. Reg
acharya
8. Qaiser Javed 9 15 18 18 Prom. Ad hoc
9. R.K. Gupta 10 7 18-1/2 18-1/2 Prom. Reg
10. Dilip Ramnani 11 Nil 18-1/2 NE Prom. Ad hoc
11. Manohar Dewani 13 11 18 8 Prom. Ad hoc
12. S.N. Gupta 14 12 18 18 Prom. Ad hoc
13. G.G. Tandon 15 13 18 18 Appointed
14. Arunesh
Upadhya 16 20 17-1/2 17-1/2 Prom. Ad hoc
15. R.P. Garg 17 21 17-1/2 17-1/2 Appointed
16. Grish Chand 18 35 15-1/2 16-1/2 Prom. Ad hoc
17. N.K.Verma 19 8 18-1/2 18-1/2 Prom. Ad hoc
18. Krishna Mohan 20 16 18 18 Prom. Ad hoc
19. V.R .Bansal 21 22 17-1/2 17-1/2 Prom. Ad hoc
20. Rajesh Wadhwa 22 19 18 18 Prom.Ad hoc
21. R.P.S.
Ahluwali 24 WL3 16-1/2 15-1/2 Prom. Ad hoc
22. Sunil Kumar 25 10 18-1/2 18-1/2 Prom. Ad hoc
23. R.K. Taneja 26 23 17-1/2 17-1/2 Prom. Ad hoc
24. A.K. Mittal 27 26 17 17 Prom.Ad hoc
25. S.K. Sindhwani 28 32 16-1/2 16-1/2 App.
26. R.P. Kohli 29 25 17 17 Prom. Ad hoc
27. Saminder Negi WL10 27 16 17 Prom. Ad hoc
28. Mohd. Illias 30 46 16 16 Prom. Ad hoc
29. M.L. Khan 31 17 17-1/2 18 Appointed
30. Surender Pal 32 24 17-1/2 17-1/2 Prom. Ad hoc
31. Manish Rastogi 33 29 17 17 Prom.Ad hoc
32. V.K. Gupta 34 30 17 17 Prom. Ad hoc
33. Dinesh Yadav 35 31 17 17 Appointed
34. A.K. Mittal 36 44 16 16 Appointed
35. V.K. Malhotra 37 28 17 17 "
36. C.K. Patel 38 48 16 16 "
37. R.K.Jain 3 WL5 15-1/2 15-1/2 "
38. Sunil Tyagi 40 52 16-1/ 16 "
39. A.K. Dikshit 41 36 16-1/2 16-1/2 "
40. A.K. Gupta 42 WL9 16-1/2 15-1/2 "
41. Naresh Gupta 43 38 16-1/2 16-1/2 "
42. R.P. Dabas 44 39 16-1/2 16-1/2 "
43. N.K. Gupta 45 41 16 16 "
44. Pushkar Sharma 46 42 16 16 "
45. M.K. Singla WL3 33 16-1/2 16 LPA 95/94
46. R.B.S. Bansal 47 34 16-1/2 16-1/2 App.
47. D.S. Dhanda 48 60 15-1/2 15-1/2 "
48. M.S. Yadav 49 WL1 15-1/2 15-1/2 "
49. Arun Kumar 50 45 16 16 "
50. Ajay Gautam 51 WL26 15 14-1/2 "
51. Rajesh Khanna WL17 49 16 16 "
52. Anil Dalal 52 50 16 16 "
53. Mahavir Prasad 53 WL8 16-1/2 15-1/2 "
54. Ramesh Kumar 54 37 16-1/2 16-1/2 "
55. Devender 55 18 18 18 "
56. Anil Kumar
Gupta 56 53 16 15-1/2 "
57. Ravinder Singh 57 55 16 16 "
58. D.D. Gulati 58 54 16 16 "
59. S.K. Mehta 59 56 16 16 "
60. V.K. Bhatia 60 40 16-1/2 16 "
List - B
(List of Selected Candidates who are found to be ineligible by
Mr. Justice G.C. Jain for want of minimum experience as on
17.7.1989.)
S. Name of the Marks as per Marks
No. Candidate Selection Board by Justice Jain
1. Dilip Ramnani 18-1/2 NE
2. R.K. Ailawadi 20-1/2 20-1/2
3. Naresh Gupta 16-1/2 16-1/2
4. Dinesh Yadav 17 17
5. Sunil Kumar 17-1/2 18-1/2
6. Rajiv Aggarwal 18
7. S. Negi 15-1/2 17
8. Grish Chand 18 16-1/2
9. Ramesh Kumar 16 16-1/2
10. A.K. Mittal 16-1/2 16
11. S.K. Mehta 16 16
12. D.S. Dhanda 16 15-1/2
13. M.S. Rana 20 20
*NE - Not eligible
List - C
(List of candidates found to be ineligible by Mr. Justice G.C.
Jain on account of crossing of maximum age limit as on 17-7-89.)
S. Name of the Date of
No. Candidates Birth Age on 17-07-89
1. M.S. Rana 07.03.47 42 Yrs. 4 Months 11 Days
2. Manohar Dewani 25.11.46 42 Yrs. 7 Months 24 Days
3. S.N. Gupta 13.06.47 42 Yrs 1 Month 5 Days
4. G.G. Tandon 20.04.49 40 Yrs 2 Months 29 Days
5. S.K. Sindhwani 01.02.53 36 Yrs 5 Months 17 Days
6. N.K. Gupta 10.03.51 38 Yrs 4 Months 8 Days
7. Pushkar Sharma 14.03.52 37 Yrs 4 Months 4 Days
5. The aforesaid lists amply demonstrate that some of the candidates who were earlier selected and appointed by the M.D. have been found by Mr. Justice Jain to be ineligible for appointment. List A shows that some of the candidates appointed by the M.C.D. have already been further promoted and remaining appointees have been working for the last 8 years. It is also relevant to mention that one of the candidates namely, Mr. Rajesh Khanna has been appointed under the directions of this Court. It is true that this case presents a rather poignant turn of events. However, the question is can the situation be rectified. Probably not, until we direct all such tainted appointments and consequent promotions to be quashed. We cannot, however, shut our eyes to the consequence that involves in uprooting such irregularly appointed employees. One could only imagine their untold miseries and the miseries of their families, if they are sacked at this distance of time. The human problem stands at the outset in these cases and it is that problem that motivated us to adopt an humanitarian approach to do justice ruled by mercy. In H.C. Pultaswamy & Ors. Vs. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Karantaka High Court , the Apex Court permitted the irregularly appointed employees to continue in service without a break. Keeping in viwe, the human problems involved in the case, learned counsel for the parties consented to an order being made disposing of these appeals/writ petitions on the basis of the following criteria:-
a) Candidates, who were earlier found eligible and appointed by the M.C.D. and are later found by Mr. Justice Jain to be ineligible for appointment may be allowed to continue in service.
b) Candidates, who were earlier found ineligible by the M.C.D. and are later found by Mr. Justice Jain to be eligible for appointment and who have approached this Court within a reasonable time, should be accommodated by giving them employment against existing vacancies.
c) Candidates, who are found by Mr. Justice Jain to be ineligible for appointment on the ground that they had obtained employment by producing false/factious certificates, should be chashiered.
6. First we will take up case of candidates falling in the last category. According to the report of Mr. Justice Jain some of the certificates of experience submitted by Mr. Sunil Tyagi (SI. No. 38), Dilip Ramnani (SI. No. 10), Mahabir Prasad (SI. No. 53) and Ajay Gautam (SI. No. 50) were not genuine.
Sunil Tyagi
7. The selection board has awarded 16-1/2 marks to Mr. Sunil Tyagi, where as Mr. Justice Jain allotted 16 marks. Mr. Justice Jain has assigned the following reasons for allocating 16 marks to him.
"However, the certificate issued by Triveni Structurals Ltd. dated 6.11.1987, shows that he was engaged as Management Trainee and he was relieved on 1.9.1988. This experience thus would be maximum from 6.11.1987 to 1.9.1988. However, alongwith his application he himself filed his bio-data which he had submitted while applying for the post of Junior Engineer. In that bio-date he had stated that he was employed with D.D. Surveys and Consultants from 1.11.1986 till date. He had also filed a certificate from D.D. Surveys dated 16.4.1988 stating that Sunil Tyagi was in their service from November 1987. Mr. Bansal pointed out that he could not be in the service of both Triveni Structurals as well as D.D. Surveys and Consultants during the same period. Mrs. Janani explained that D.D. Surveys were executing the project of Triveni Structurals Ltd. as Sub Contractor and Triveni Structurals who posted Shri Tyagi with D.D. Surveys. Sunil Tyagi got a certificate from D.D. Surveys. This explanation does not appear to be convicing. Triveni Structurals and D.D. Surveys were two different entitles. If he was employed with Triveni Structurals Ltd., he could not be treated as an employee of D.D. Surveys. Either of the two certificates is wrong. In the circumstances, I have no counted experience with Triveni Structurals. Of course, this question as well as the question whether he was liable to be debarred for filing a false certificate has to be decided by the Hon'ble High Court. His experience would come as under:
1. Om Parkash Baldev Krishan 1.7.86-22.7.87 00 07 22
2. U.P. State Bridge 23.2.87-30.10.87 00 08 09 Corporation
3. M.C.D. 2.9.88-31.7.89 00 10 29
--------
02 03 00
--------
He will get nil marks for experience. His total marks would be 16. (8 for qualification, and 8 for Interview)."
8. The report shows that an explanation was offered by Mr. Sunil Tyagi with regards to these certificates but the same as rejected on the ground that the Triveni Structurals and D.D. Surveys were two different entitles. Learned counsel for Mr. Sunil Tyagi has contended that it is not a case of service with two employers. According to learned counsel, M/s. D.D. Surveys were executing the work at site for Triveni Structurals and Mr. Sunil Tyagi though employed with Triveni Structurals was posted at the work site. In our opinion the explanation offered on behalf of Mr. Sunil Tyagi appears to be plausible and its rejection was wholly unjustified. In view of the explanation offered by Mr. Tyagi, it cannot be held that one of the certificates of experience submitted by him was either false or fictitious.
Dilip Ramnani
9. The Selection Board had awarded 18-1/2 marks to Mr. Dilip Ramnani. On verification of record, Mr. Justice Jain has found him ineligible for selection on the ground that his experience was less than two years. Mr. Justice Jain has stated in his report as under:
"Date of birth and percentage of marks are correct as per certificates on the file. Experience from 1.1.86 to 31.3.1986 with United Constructions is supported by certificate. Candidate filed two certificates in support of employment with Integrated Construction Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Gurgoan. Both are dated 14.6.1986 with the same reference number. The first certificate says that he joined their concern as J.E. on 1.4.1986 and was working on their Garden Estate Project in Gurgaon. The second certificate says that he was in their service from 1.4.1986 to 31.1.1987. This certificate appears to be suspicious because on 14.6.1986 which is the date of the certificate it could not be certified that he was in their service up to 31.1.1987. In these circumstances, I have taken the total experience with this firm as 1.4.1986 to 14.6.1986.
He claimed experience for working with Ishvakee (India) Pvt. Ltd. from 11.8.1988, 30.11.88. Mr. Ramnani has filed the certificate dated 12.8.1988 from Ishvakee (India) Pvt. Ltd. which says that he joined their service on 11.2.1988. This certificate also does not give the date when he left the service. I have taken this experience from 11.2.1988 to 12.8.1988, the date of the certificate. Candidate has filed a certificate dated 15.3.1987 which says that he joined Raori Associates on 1.2.1987. It, however, does not say up to what date he worked there. In the circumstances, I have taken his experience in this firm from 1.2.1987 to 15.3.87 the date of certificate.
Mrs. Janani stated that experience wit ICMCP Ltd. should be taken up to 31.1.1987 because he joined RAORI Associates with effect from 1.2.1987 and similarly experience with M/s. RAORI Associates should be counted up to 10.2.1988 because he joined Ishvakee (I) Pvt. Ltd. on 11.2.88. Prima facie I find no justification for raising such presumptions. His experience, therefore, would be as under:-
United Constructions, N.D. 1.1.86 to 31.3.86 00 03 00
ICMCP Ltd., Gurgaon 1.4.86 to 14.6.86 00 02 14
Raori Associates 1.2.87 to 15.3.87 00 01 15
Ishvakee (I) Ltd. 11.2.88 to 12.8.88 00 06 02
MCD 1.12.88 to 31.7.89 00 08 00
--------
01 07 01
* His experience was less than 2 years and he was not eligible."
10. No doubt, one of the certificates issued by ICMCP Ltd., Gurgaon raises suspicion with regard to the duration of Mr. Ramnani's employment in the said company and Mr. Justice Jain has, therefore, taken his experience in the said company for the period from 1.4.1986 to 14.6.1986. Both the certificates issued by the said company go to show that Sh. Ramnani was its employee. However, in the absence of clear and cogent evidence, it cannot be held that Sh. Ramnani had obtained employment by submitting false or fictitious certificate.
Mahabir Prasad
11. Selection board has awarded 16-1/2 to Mahabir Prasad, whereas, on scrutiny, Mr. Justice Jain allotted 15-1/2 marks to him. Mr. Jain has reduced the marks on the ground that one of the certificates issued by India Gypsum Ltd. issued in favour of Mahabir Prasad was false. The certificate dated 31.3.1988 issued by the said company shows that Mahabir Prasad was in their service from 1.12.1985 to 30.11.1987, whereas the certificate dated 28.4.1987 recites that Mahabir Prasad was employed in their organisation from 1.12.85 till the date of issue of the certificate. According to Mr. Justice Jain, the certificate dated 31.3.88 appeared to be false inasmuch as the said certificate showed that Mahabir Prasad remained in service of the said Company till 30.11.87, whereas Mahabir Prasad admittedly had joined service with the MCD (D.W.S. & S.D.U. ) w.e.f. 9.11.1987. No doubt there is an apparent inconsistency between these two certificates but there is nothing on the record to show or suggest that Mahabir Prasad never remained in the employment of the said Company or that he had forged these certificates. The error with regard to the date i.e. 30.11.1987 in the certificate dated 31.3.88 might have occurred due to a typographical error.
Ajay Gautam
12. The Selection Board has awarded 15 marks to Ajay Gautam. Mr. Justice Jain has also allotted the same marks to him but he observed that "in the case out off date is taken as 16.7.1989 and there is no rounding of his marks would be reduced by half marks". It appears that Mr. Justice Jain has taken the cut off dated as 31.7.1989 while awarding 15 marks to him. Admittedly, the cut off dated is 17.7.1989 and according to the report of Mr. Justice Jain if the cut off date is taken as 17.7.1989, half mark has to be deducted from the marks allotted to Mr. Ajay Gautam. It follows that the marks allotted to Mr. Ajay Gautam are 14-1/2.
13. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that the appointment of S/Shri Sunil Tyagi, Dilip Ramnani, Mahabir Prasad and Ajay Gautam cannot be quashed on the ground that they had obtained employment by producing false or fictitious certificates.
14. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 5087/97, 805/98, 1871/96, 4927/97, 1516/98, 1484/98 and 1485/98:-
By these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the selection and appointments of candidates on the same grounds mentioned earlier. We do not propose to set out here the averments made in these writ petitions because we have already mentioned the relevant facts in the earlier part of this order.
15. On 1.10.1996 and on 3.10.1996, S/Shri J.S. Dhiyani and S.K. Prabhkar filed two separate applications under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. (C.M. No. 6787/96) and 6675/96 respectively) for their impleadment in the Civil Writ Petitions No. 4819/94 on the ground of their non-selection for the posts in question. Mr. S.K. Katara, respondent No. 63 in LPA No. 95/94 (Ansar Alam and Ors. Vs. M.C.D. and Ors.), has filed CM 671/98, praying for his transposition as an appellant in the appeal on the ground that he is also aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 10.8.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge.
16. Learned counsel for the M.C.D. has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of these petitions/applications on the ground of delay and laches. It is significant to mention that in the instant case the list of the candidates selected by the M.C.D. was notified on 11.5.1990. On 23.11.1995, Mr. Justice Jain was appointed by this Court to verify the relevant records and he submitted his report to this Court on 12.8.1996. The petitioners/applicants kept sleeping over their rights for long and woke up when they had the impetus from the report submitted by Mr. Justice Jain. No doubt Article 226 of the Constitution prescribes no period of limitation but the period fixed by the Limitation Act within which a suit in Civil Court must be brought can ordinarily be taken as reasonable standard by which delay in seeking the remedy under Article 226 can be measured. (Mafat Lal Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI (1997) 5 SCC 357). For this purpose. It does not seem to matter whether a suit would, in fact, lie or not. The inquiry should be when would a suit for the relief claimed becomes barred by time, if a suit lay. Unfortunately, on the date of filing of these petitions/applications, a suit for the relief claimed would have been barred. Consequently, these petitioners/applicants are dis-entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution due to inordinate delay and laches.
17. On 10.3.1998, the appellant No. 12 (Mr. V.K. Kadiyan) filed CM 682/98 in LPA 95/94 seeking a direction to restore the marks awarded to him by the Selection Board. The Selection Board had awarded 15 marks to him. On verification of the record, Mr. Justice Jain has reduced the total marks awarded to the applicant from 15 to 14. Mr. Justice Jain has assigned valid reasons for reducing the marks and we are not inclined to take different view. Consequently the said application deserves to be dismissed.
18. It is an admitted position that the last appointee is Mr. V.K. Bhatia. On verification of the records, Mr. Justice Jain has allotted 16 marks to him. His name appears at SI. No. 60 in the List-A. Mr. Justice Jain has also allotted 16 marks to Mr. M.K. Singhla and 15-1/2 marks to S/Shri R.K. Jain, B.B. Jaiswal, A.K. Batra, Nasrul Islam and S.K. Prabhakar. On verification, 14-1/2 marks have been allotted to S/Shri Ashwini Kumar, R.K. Gupta, M.M. Dhaiya, J.S. Dhiyani and Ansar Aalam. Mr. Justice Jain has also placed Mr. A.K. Batra, Mr. R.K. Jain and Mr. B.B. Jaiswal at position No. 43. 58 and 59 respectively in the list prepared by him, whereas the Selection Board had placed them in the waiting list (W.L.No.6, 2 and 5). Mr. Jain has placed Nasrual Islam and M.M. Dhaiya in the waiting list. Mr. Justice Jain has allotted 15 marks to S/Shri M.M. Khan, S.K. Mittal and D.K. Chadha and 14-1/2 marks to Ashwini Kumar, R.K. Gupta and Ansar Aalam. It has to be borne in mind that an effort to do complete justice between the the parties is a compulsion of judicial conscience and the Court can and should strive to evolve an appropriate remedy, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, so as to prevent injustice arising from the exigencies of the cause or matter before it. It needs to be highlighted that Mr. Ajaj Gautam, to whom 14-1/2 marks has been allotted, was placed at SI. No. 51 in the select list prepared by the Selection Board. According to Mr. Justice Jain, he ought to have been placed at position No. 26 in the waiting list. Since Mr. Ajay Gautam has been appointed by the M.C.D., the candidates namely S/Shri M.K. Singhla, R.K. Jain, B.B. Jaiswal, A.K. Batra, Nasrul Islam, M.M. Khan, Shri Mahindir, S.K. Mittal, D.K. Chadha, Ashwani Kumar, R.K. Gupta, M.M. Dhaiya and Ansar Alam who have approached this Court within a reasonable time and have obtained not less than 14-1/2 marks are also entitled to similar treatment. Consequently, the aforesaid candidates are entitled to be appointed for the said posts against the existing vacancies. Remaining appellants/petitioners whose marks verified by Mr. Justice Jain are below 14-1/2 were ineligible for appointment to the posts in question and therefore, cannot be granted any relief.
19. This leads to another thorny issue about fixing seniority of the new entrants qua those already appointed for the posts in question. It has been contended that those who failed to get into the service cannot be retrospectively appointed to distrub the seniority of the candidates selected and appointed for the posts in question. As mentioned earlier, some of the candidates selected by the Selection Board were ineligible either not having the requisite experience on the cut off date, i.e. 17.7. 1989 or not being within the maximum age limit. It cannot be overlooked that their selection for the posts in question itself is tainted. The lawful expectations of S/Shri M.K. Singla, R.K. Jain, B.B. Jaiswal, A.K. Batra, Nasrul Islam, M.M. Khan, Shri Mahindir, S.K. Mittal, Ashwni Kumar, R.K. Gupta, M.M. Dhaiya and Ansar Aalam were denied by the failure of the Selection Board to follow a fair procedure of selection. Needless to add here that procedural fairness and impartiality are the indispensable essence of the administrative action. The fairness or fair procedure in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to it. It must take decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. A selection or decision which is made without bias or extraneous consideration, and with proper consideration of the comparative merits of the candidates, will not only be acceptable, it will also be of better quality. However, it is the duty of the Court to undo the wrong that was initially done to the aforesaid candidates by treating them to have been recruited on the day the other selected candidates were recruited. They should not be made to suffer in the matter of seniority also.
20. Taking an overall view of the matter, we deem it fit to issue the following directions:
a) S/Shri M.K. Singla, R.K. Jain B.B. Jaiswal, A.K. Batra, Nasrul Islam, M.M. Khan, Shri Mahindir, S.K. Mittal, D.K. Chadha, Ashwni Kumar, R.K. Gupta, M.M. Dhaiya and Ansar Aalam shall be given appointments for the posts in question, from the date they are entitled to as per the original selection in 1989 without giving them any monetary benefit for the period from the date they were entitled to the appointments to the date they are actually appointed and if, necessary, they may be given deemed date of appointment. It is, however, clarified that the aforesaid persons may be considered for promotion on completion of qualifying service in the rank as per rules. Respondent M.C.D. is directed to carry out the aforesaid directions within four weeks from today.
b) Inter se seniority of S/Shri M.K. Singla, R.K. Jain, B.B. Jaiswal, A.K. Batra, Nasrul Islam, M.M. Dhaiya, M.M. Khan, Sri. Manidar, S.K. Mittal, D.K. Chadha, Ashwani Kumar, R.K. Gupta, Ansar Aalam and the remaining candidates selected and appointed for the posts in question shall be determined by the respondent/M.C.D. in accordance with their ranking in the merit list prepared by Mr. Justice Jain, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected employees.
21. Before we conclude, we would like to record our sense of gratitude to the learned counsel for the parties, who addressed us at the Bar, which could aptly be called a labour of love and cooperation. They have argued the matter with their usual fairness and ability and have left nothing unsaid. We would also like to place on record our appreciation for the valuable service rendered by Mr. J.M. Sabharwal and Mr. S. Ravindra Bhat, Advocates, who have devoted considerable industry to the task. The cooperation shown by Mr. Sabharwal was remarkable keeping in view the fact that he was appearing for a public body. This case demonstrates how fairness on the part of counsel can help the cause of justice. This litigation could have gone on and on for years. However, the counsel for the parties realising this fact adopted an approach of cooperation in order to put an end to the entire litigation. They all realised that an order on the above lines could be the best solution in the facts of these cases. We hope that this object is achieved.
22. The Letters Patent Appeals/Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.