Delhi High Court - Orders
Ranbir Singh vs Rajesh Bhatia & Ors on 14 January, 2021
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 633/2017 & CM APPLs 27158/2018 and 16893/2020
RANBIR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Advocate.
versus
RAJESH BHATIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. Nitesh
Kumar Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 14.01.2021 The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
1. The petitioner had applied for the post of Draftsman Grade-III in the Delhi Jal Board ('DJB'). The results for the exam held in March 2010 showed him at Serial No.22 in the SC Merit List. However, nobody was declared as eligible they ostensibly lacked eligibility Diploma. The respondent contends that in any case, the petitioner would not get the employment because he was way down on in the Merit List and possessed a Certificate in lieu of the prescribed Diploma.
2. On 21.09.2011, the said results were declared as 'nil' by the government. This was impugned by the petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT'), Principal Bench, New Delhi. The learned Tribunal set aside the quashing order of the respondents and directed, inter alia, as under:
"....16.In view of the above, we allow the O.A. and to direct the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2021 11:44:42 respondents No. 3 and 2 to the following course of action:-
...
(ii) They will scrutinize the appointment order of the 7 named persons, If they have been given appointment as Draftsman Grade III that is the post applied for by the applicant .on the basis of their eligibility being National Certificate of Trade from an ITI, the same benefit must be extended to the applicant i.e. declare him eligible in terms of the Recruitment Rules.
Subject to other condition i.e. skill test/medical test etc. of appointment being satisfied, he would be given an offer of appointment. The whole exercise to be carried out within 3 months of receipt of copy of this order.."
3. The said order/relief was applicable only to the petitioner, as he was the only person who had impugned the quashing order passed by the respondents. The order of the CAT was challenged before this Court. By its decision dated 22.04.2016 the Division Bench of this court held, inter alia, as under:
"...7. It is noticeable that the earlier decision of the Division Bench in the case of Gaurav Shankhdhar (supra) was not brought to notice in Sanjeev Kumar & Ors (supra). Letter dated l" September, 2010 issued by the Government of Delhi, Department of Training and 'Technical Education and the circular issued by the Government of India dated 2l" May, 1997 were also not brought to the notice of the Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar & Ors (supra).
8. The question would be whether the certificate in question is equivalent to the diploma as stipulated in the Recruitment Rules. In case the certificate in question is equivalent to the diploma as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, then the certificate holder cannot be disqualified and would be eligible. However, in case the certificate is not equivalent to the diploma as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, the said candidate would be disqualified. In the latter case/situation, it may be desirable to- follow the mandate in Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2021 11:44:42
(supra), i.e., to amend and update the Recruitment Rules to make them contemporaneous. However, if the certificate is found and held to be equivalent, then amendment etc. would not be required and necessary. Care and caution should be exercised by the first petitioner when advertisements are published for posts with similar eligibility requirements. Had caution been exercised and the judgments of this court considered, this controversy and litigation would not have arisen.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the question of equivalence should not be determined and decided on the basis that in 1996 or by mistake or error earlier, the certificates awarded by the National Council for Vocational Training were accepted without examining the question of equivalence. We accept and recognize that law does not recognise the principle of negative equality. However, in case the said exercise of equivalence has been undertaken and it was held that the certificate in question was equivalent to the diploma, different consequences, could follow. It is also equally true that in the case of administrative, decisions, for good and sufficient grounds a different decision can be taken and the principle of no review is not applicable.
10. In view of the aforesaid position, we dispose this writ petition directing the Government of NCT of Delhi to examine the question of equivalence and thereafter proceed and decide the question of eligibility. We clarify that we have not given any specific direction to tli Government on any aspect and it is open to the Delhi Government to proceed in accordance with law, With regard to the direction given by the Tribunal in paragraph
(iii), we again leave it open to the government to decide..."
4. Subsequently, the government declared that the National Trade Certificate in Draftsmanship (Civil) is equivalent to a Diploma in Draftsmanship (Civil), as issued by the Ministry of Skilled Development and Entrepreneurship, Director General of Training, Government of India.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2021 11:44:425. That being the position, the petitioner who possessed the said Certificate, would be deemed to have been eligible for appointment and corollary steps ought to have been taken by the respondents in this regard. Even then, the results were declared as 'nil'. The respondent continues to maintain the petitioner would not get the benefit of appointment, since he was at Serial No.22 of the Merit List. This argument is untenable because the petitioner is the only beneficiary of the order passed by the learned CAT and he would therefore be the first on the Merit List.
6. The post for which the petitioner applied for is with the DJB and he being the sole candidate, he should have been offered the said position. The respondents state that similar examination result apropos the North Delhi Municipal Corporation too, have been declared 'nil'. The court is of the view that the same, would have no bearing on the petitioner's case because he applied for employment not in the said Municipal Corporation, but in a different organisation viz. the Delhi Jal Board.
7. The petitioner's right was established with the order of the learned CAT, and was confirmed by this Court's order dated 22.04.2016. In the circumstances, the petitioner ought to have been offered the said position once he was found to possess the equivalent qualification certification.
8. The respondents say that in terms of the Recruitment Rules, fresh examinations/recruitments were held in 2015 and 2017 but the petitioner did not participate in them. It is however, not known if the petitioner was still eligible age-wise, to sit for the subsequent exams.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2021 11:44:42The petitioner took the exam was held in 2010; he has otherwise diligently pursued his legal rights immediately after the results were declared 'nil' on 21.09.2011; his rights have been secured all along. Therefore, the subsequent developments would not prejudice his secured rights.
9. In the circumstances, it would be fair that the respondents declare the result only in respect of the petitioner. Appropriate orders/action in this regard shall be passed/taken by the respondents within ten weeks from today.
10.The petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed-off accordingly,
11.The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J JANUARY 14, 2021/rd Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2021 11:44:42