Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Prakash Chander Pandey vs Delhi Development Authority on 13 January, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH TA No. 13/2008 New Delhi, this the 13th day of January, 2010 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE MR. L.K.JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) 1. Sh. Prakash Chander Pandey, S/o Late Sh. T.R.Pandey R/o 35-B, Pocket-3, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-91. 2. Sh. Rajesh Handa, S/o Late I.N.Handa R/o B-3B/90-B, Janak Puri, New Delhi. 3. Sh. R.K.Gupta S/o Sh. Srichand Gupta, R/o D-17/344, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi. 4. Sh. Surender Meena S/o Late Sh. Mali Ram Meena, R/o C-7/154, SDA, DDA-103, Staff Quarter, New Delhi. 5. Sh. Ashok Kumar Jangid, S/o Sh. G.C.Jangid, RZ-364, Raj Nagar-II Palam Colony, New Delhi. 6. Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh R/o 201, Neb Sarai, New Delhi. 7. Sh. Tejpal Singh S/o Sh. Baljor Singh, R/o C-1069, LIG Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi. 8. Sh. Sat Narayan, S/o Sh. Sahi Ram, R/o RZ-69 Dharam Pura, Najafgarh, New Delhi. 9. Sh. Dharmender Sharma, S/o Sh. M.C.Sharma, R/o B-39/1, Durga Gali, Maujpur, Delhi. 10. Sh. J.R.Malhotra, S/o Late Sh. Sanju Ram Malhotra, R/o 18/117, Geeta Colony, Delhi. 11. Vijay Kumar Sahni S/o Sh. R.P.Saini R/o A-6 Radhey Puri, Delhi-110051. Applicants (By Advocate: Sh. A.K.Behera and Sh. Yogesh Sharma) Versus Delhi Development Authority, Through its Vice Chairman, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A., New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Dhanesh Relan for Sh. Arun Birbal) ORDER
Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) This writ petition has been transferred by the Honourable Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on transfer of jurisdiction over the matters relating to service matters of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
2. The Applicants were working as Assistants/Stenographers when the writ petition was filed before the Honourable Delhi High Court. They had become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Administration) after five years of service in the grade of Assistants/Stenographers. Following a circular dated 19.10.2001, issued by the Respondent - DDA, for the post of Assistant Director (Administration), the Applicants also applied for the said post. One of the subjects in the examination for the promotion for the post of Assistant Director (Administration) was Hindi Precis, Grammar and General Knowledge of the subject Hindi. It is the case of the Applicants that all of them have studied Hindi up to graduation level and have been working as Hindi Stenographers also. It is stated that the Applicants failed in Hindi test, in spite of having studied Hindi up to graduation level and in spite of being Hindi Stenographers. The Applicants are aggrieved that the answer-sheets of Hindi examinations were examined by an officer who had the Degree of Engineering and also had Masters in Business Administration. However, it is stated that he had studied Hindi only up to Madhyamic (up to 8th class) level. The following prayer has been made in the TA:
(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order of direction to direct the respondent to get the Hindi language answer sheets of the petitioners for the written test held in July/August, 2005 for the post of Assistant Director (Ministerial) pursuant to Circular no.11 dated 19/10/2001 and the result declared on 16/1/2006 be re-evaluated and in case the petitioners are successful, direct the respondent to promote the petitioners as Assistant Director (Ministerial) when the others who had appeared in the said examination were promoted along with all consequential benefits.
3. The learned counsel for the Respondents at the outset stated that the OA had become infructuous because the Respondents on the suggestion made by the Honourable Delhi High Court for re-evaluation of answer-sheets had got the answer-sheets already re-evaluated. It is stated that the answer-sheets were first sent to the Delhi Administration for evaluation by their Hindi officer. However, the Delhi Administration expressed difficulty in evaluation of the answer-sheets and returned those sheets to Respondent DDA. Thereafter, the DDA sent these answer-sheets to Professor of Hindi in Jamia Milia Islamia University. The answer-sheets were re-evaluated by the aforesaid Professor and there was very little difference in marks given by the examiner appointed by the DDA initially and by the Professor who re-evaluated the answer-sheets. He would also contend that subsequently three of the Applicants have already been promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Administration). The learned counsel for the Respondents would further contend that now the Applicants are objecting to the re-evaluation by the Professor of Hindi on the ground that he was over-qualified, whereas earlier they were objecting to the evaluation by the Examiner appointed by the DDA on the ground that he was under-qualified.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant, when confronted with this position, has not been able to give any argument as to how the grievance of the Applicants survives. The Applicants had only requested for re-evaluation, which was done by a competent person appointed by the Respondents.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion, the OA has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
( L.K. JOSHI ) ( V.K. BALI ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman sd