Delhi High Court
Subhash Chand vs Dvb & Ors. on 17 December, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5930/2000
% December 17, 2013
SUBHASH CHAND ......Petitioner
Through: None
VERSUS
DVB & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner by means of this writ petition seeks the relief of being appointed to the post of Assistant Electrical Fitter with the Delhi Vidyut Board. Delhi Vidyut Board has been unbundled and now the successor entity would be a DISCOM as per the unbundling scheme. Writ petition however has not been amended to add the successor entity. Possibly for this reason itself, petition may not be maintainable, however, I am deciding the petition on merits as per the record.
2. The facts of the case are that petitioner applied for appointment for the post of Assistant Electrical Fitter in Delhi Vidyut Board as per the advertisement in Hindustan Times on 01.3.1999. Qualification for the post of Assistant Electrical Fitter included a requirement of ITI certificate W.P.(C) 5930/2000 Page 1 of 4 in electrical or equivalent trade. Petitioner was called for the interview, was selected and was issued an appointment letter dated 16.5.2000, which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Petitioner however was denied appointment by the impugned order dated 30.8.2000 and which reads as under:
"E/Tech/2000-2001/VPK/2062 Dated 28th/30th Aug, 2000 REGISTERED AD Shri Subhash Chand, s/o Shri Ishar Ram, House no: D-1655, on Dhansa Road, Opposite M/s Sansar Petrol Pump, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043:
SUB: Appointment for the post of Asstt. Electric Fitter Dear Sir, Please refer to our offer of Appointment letter no:AO(P-I)/E/Tech/99- 2000/SC-96/1060 dated 16th May, 2000 on the post of Asstt. Elect. Fitter.
In this connection, I am directed to inform you that since you do not possess the necessary technical qualification required for the post of Asstt. Elec. Fitter, as such our offer of appointment stands cancelled.
Yours faithfully, (G.SRINIVASAN) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (P-1)"
3. Petitioner has therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking appointment By pleading that since eligibility requirement included equivalent trade to an ITI certificate in electrical field, petitioner was qualified because he had an ITI certificate in electronics mechanical.
4. The issue to be decided in this writ petition is whether respondent is entitled to deny appointment to the petitioner as ITI in the trade of electronic mechanical is not equivalent to ITI in electrical trade.
5. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondent shows that, as per the W.P.(C) 5930/2000 Page 2 of 4 recruitment rules, the eligibility condition for appointment of an Assistant Electrical Fitter was that the person must have ITI diploma in electrical trade. The expression „equivalent trade‟ was however, mentioned in the advertisement, and therefore, the Delhi State Services Selection Board left it to the Delhi Vidyut Board to decide the issue of equivalence.
6. The respondent has categorically stated that qualification of ITI in the trade of electronics mechanical is not equivalent to ITI in electrical trade, which is the requirement as per the recruitment rules.
7. This Court can only interfere with the decision of the respondent with respect to equivalence, if the action of the respondent was arbitrary. In my opinion, once the recruitment rules only required ITI in electrical trade, insertion of the expression „equivalent trade‟ in the advertisement will have to be considered strictly and it is the entitlement of the respondent to demand exact equivalence. Respondent was therefore justified in its action and no arbitrariness in the action of the respondent is found in refusing to equate ITI in electrical trade with ITI in electronic mechanical. Petitioner, therefore, cannot seek a relief of appointment to the post of Assistant Electrical Fitter as is prayed for in the writ petition.
8. There is another reason why this Court should not grant the relief as prayed for. This is because exercise of powers under Article 226 is discretionary, and this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that Delhi W.P.(C) 5930/2000 Page 3 of 4 Vidyut Board as it originally stood no longer exists and it has been divided into various entities/distribution companies (DISCOMS). As of today, petitioner would be governed by which DISCOM cannot be known because if the petitioner did not get appointment, it cannot be known today that which was the zone in which the petitioner would have been appointed, and therefore, which was the successor entity of Delhi Vidyut Board with whom petitioner would have got employment.
9. Another aspect to be noted is that petitioner does not dispute that the appointment given to him was for a temporary post, and therefore, once appointment is only to a temporary post, in terms of the letter of the Delhi Vidyut Board dated 16.5.2000, no purpose will be served in the year 2013 for grant of a temporary post to the petitioner, more so because, by the appointment letter dated 16.5.2000, services in the temporary post could be terminated by one month notice.
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J DECEMBER 17, 2013 KA W.P.(C) 5930/2000 Page 4 of 4