Delhi High Court - Orders
Secretary Delhi Subordinate Services ... vs Ranbir Singh & Anr on 18 January, 2022
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 80/2021 & CM APPL. 7636/2021
SECRETARY DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION
BOARD DSSSB & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel with Mrs. Tania Ahlawal,
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh & Ms. Palak
Rohemetra, Advs.
versus
RANBIR SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal Adv. for R-l.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 18.01.2022
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 14.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in CONT. CAS(C) 633/2017 title Ranbir Singh vs. Rajesh Bhatia & Ors.
2. The said contempt petition had been preferred on account of the alleged non-compliance by the respondent/appellant of the judgement dated 22.04.2016 passed by the Division Bench in W.P. (C) 4127/2013. That judgement had been rendered in writ petition preferred by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as DSSSB) to assail the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in O.A. No. 304/2012 preferred by the respondent Ranbir Singh. The Tribunal allowed the said Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21 Original Application and issued the following directions:
"16. In view of the above, we allow the O.A. and to direct the respondents No. 3 and 2 to the following course of action: -
(i) The respondent No. 3 to amend their RRs with regard to eligibility to the post of Draftsman. They may like to append a list of actual certificates/degrees/diplomas of 2 years duration which they wish to consider. This amendment must be carried out before the next recruitment, but will not apply to advertisement which may have been issued already.
(ii) They will scrutinize the appoint 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 crux of the issue, which arose before the Division Bench when it dealt with W.P. (C) 4127/2013, was whether the National Trade Certificate was equivalent to two-year diploma in Draftsmanship. The Recruitment Rules in question prescribed the eligibility as a diploma of two years in Draftsmanship. On that basis, the advertisement had been issued by the DSSSB inviting applications. The respondent along with the several others applied in response to the said advertisement. The respondent, being a Scheduled Caste candidate, was placed in merit at serial No. 22. However, the DSSSB declared 'nil' result on the ground that none of the candidates possessed the two-year diploma qualification in Draftsmanship.
4. The grievance raised by the original applicant/respondent before the Tribunal was that the two-year trade certificate obtained by him was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21 equivalent to the two-year diploma in Draftsmanship. The Tribunal had allowed the original application in the aforesaid terms. While allowing the application, the Tribunal had also considered the submission of the DSSSB that the original applicant/respondent was placed at serial No. 22 in the merit list of the Scheduled Caste candidates, and, therefore, in any event, he could not be granted offer of appointment, since there were only two posts reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The Tribunal, however, rejected the submission on the premise that the original applicant/respondent was the only one, who had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in time, and, therefore, he could not be denied relief merely because those higher in merit had not challenged the declaration of 'nil' result.
5. The Division Bench decided the writ petition preferred by the DSSSB, as aforesaid on 22.04.2016. The Division Bench took note of the qualifications stipulated in the Recruitment Rules of the Delhi Jal Board for the post of Draftsman Grade-III under post code 68/07, which inter alia provided the "essential qualifications" that is "Matriculation from a recognized university or equivalent," and "passed two years diploma in Draftsmanship from a recognized institution." It was argued that the Recruitment Rules did not provide the National Trade Certificate in the Draftsmanship (Civil) as an equivalent qualification. The Division Bench also took note of the decision of this Court in DSSSB vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. in W.P. (C) 6947/2012 decided on 09.04.2013, wherein the candidates being Draftsman with National Trade Certificate were denied relief on the same plea that the Recruitment Rules prescribed two-year diploma in Draftsmanship (Civil) from a recognized institution. The decision of the Tribunal, which in that case was also similar to the decision rendered in the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21 case of the respondent herein, was reversed. The Division Bench while dealing with the writ petition being WP(C) 4127/2013 relating to the respondent herein inter alia observed as follows:
"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. (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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21 specific direction to the 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."
6. Alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid decision, the respondent herein preferred the contempt petition in which the impugned order had come to be passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, has inter alia observed and directed as follows:
"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."
7. Ms. Ahlawat, who appears for the appellant, submits that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to pass the fresh directions while deciding the contempt case, which go far beyond the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.P. (C) 4127/2013 decided on 22.04.2016. She submits that the Division Bench, in the light of the Recruitment Rules placed before it, as well as the decision in Sanjeev Kumar (supra), after observing that the law did not recognize the principle of negative equality, went on to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the GNCTD to examine the question of equivalence and, thereafter, proceed and decide the question of eligibility. The Division Bench clarified that it had not given any specific direction to the GNCTD on any aspect, and the Division Bench left it open to the Delhi Government to proceed in accordance with law, and even with regard to the direction issued by the Tribunal in para (iii), the Division Bench left it to the Government to decide. Thus, the Division Bench, in effect, neutralised the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21 direction issued by the Tribunal in favour of the original applicant/respondent in O.A. No. 304/2012. Ms. Ahlawat submits that since the respondent had preferred the contempt petition, the appellant had passed an order on 04.09.2020 which reads as follows:
" GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI DELHI SUBORINDATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD FC-18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-92 No. F.1(181)/CC-II/DSSSB/2010/10964-66 Dated: 04.09.2020 To, Sh. Ranbir Singh, S/o Sh. Sahi Ram, Village Mundela Khurd, P.O. Mundela Kalan, Delhi-110073 Sub: Contempt Case (C) No. 633/2017 in the matter of Ranbir Singh Vs Rajesh Bhatia & Ors. in the matter of WP(C) No. 4127/2013 titled DSSSB & Anr. Vs. Ranbir Singh & Anr.
Sir, This is in reference to the direction vide order dated 14.08.2020 of Hon'ble High Court in CONT. CAS(C) 633/2017 & CM APPL. 27158/2018. In this connection I am directed to inform you that as per letter dated 22.01.2018 of Dy. Director (Training), Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Directorate General of Training, GOI, diploma in Draughtsman civil is equivalent to National Trade Certificate in Draughtsman civil. However, in RR necessary amendment is to be done by Delhi Jal Board being user department.
It is further to inform that Board had declared the result for the post code 68/07 for the post of Draftsman Grade-III in DJB, vide Result Notice dated 21.09.2011 as NIL since no candidate was found suitable for the post as per statutory Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21 provisions of RRs of said post. Further candidate Sh. Ranbir Singh was at serial number 22 in the merit list of SC category for the said post code, however in the advertisement for the post code 68/07 only 02 posts was advertised for the SC category candidate.
It is further to inform that Delhi Jal Board has send fresh requisition for the post of Draughtsman Civil Grade III in the year 2017 which was advertised vide advertisement no. 01/17 under post code 06/17 and result of the said post code had already been declared.
Dy. Secretary (CC-II), DSSSB No. F.1(181)/CC-II/DSSSB/2010/10964-66 Dated: 04.09.2020 Copy to:
1. Dy. Secretary (UD), GNCTD, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
1. The Director (A & P), Delhi Jal Board, GNCTD, Varunalaya Building Phase-II, Karol Bagh, New Delh-
110005.
Dy. Secretary (CC-II), DSSSB"
8. Ms. Ahlawat has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of J. S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar [1996 (6) SCC 291] and Midnapore Peoples Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. Chunlal Nanda & Ors. [2006 (5) SCC 399], to submit that while dealing with the contempt petition, the Court could not issue any fresh directions.
9. Ms. Ahlawat submits that in respect of identical posts, with identical Recruitment Rules in the NDMC, the Division Bench held that the original applicant, who succeeded before the Tribunal, could not be granted relief in the light of the Recruitment Rules, which were prevailing, which prescribed two-year diploma in Draftsmanship as the essential qualification and did not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21 recognize and provide the two-year National Trade Certificate (Civil) as an equivalent qualification. Consequently, even if the two qualifications were equivalent, others were precluded from applying for the posts when advertised in terms of the Recruitment Rules. The observations made in W.P. (C) 6947/2012 title DSSSB vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. are relied upon which read as follows:
"6. We agree with the stand taken by the Board that unless NDMC amends its Recruitment Rules it would be impermissible to include the National Trade Certificate in Draftsmanship as a valid eligibility degree for the reason an advertisement has to conform to the Recruitment Rules. In the absence thereof what would happen would be that large number of candidates possessing the National Trade Certificate in Draftsmanship, thinking that they are ineligible, may not even apply. To make eligible those who take a chance would amount to denying fair opportunity to the others.
7. Thus, as regards WP(C)6947/2012, we allow the same and quash the order dated May 25, 2012 but simultaneously direct NDMC to forthwith amend its Recruitment Rules in conformity with its stand taken before not only the Board but even the Tribunal, which stand is reiterated before us today. Selection process be completed thereafter. Needless to state a fresh advertisement would be issued."
10. On the other hand, Ms. Kalkal, who appears for the respondent, submits that the respondent has been litigating for over ten years. He succeeded before the Tribunal. She submits that the Division Bench, while dealing with the respondent's writ petition challenging the order in favour of the respondent, did not set aside the same. She also places reliance on para-8 of the said order, which we have reproduced hereinabove to submit that the consequences of the two qualifications aforesaid being equivalent were directed to flow. She submits that since the Central Government had Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21 clarified that the two qualifications are equivalent, the consequence of the petitioner being appointed to the vacant post should have followed, since he was the only one, who had knocked the door of the Court, and sought relief. She submits that there were others higher in merit list inasmuch as they never agitated their rights and claims before the Tribunal or the Court. In that regard, she places reliance on State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. [(2015) 1 SCC 347]. She submits that the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the contempt case, has merely implemented the judgement rendered by the Division Bench as aforesaid.
11. Having heard learned counsels and perused the record, we are of the view that the impugned order goes beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the Court under Article 215 of the Constitution or jurisdiction vested by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. As to whether, or not, the contempt was made out, depended on the determination of the issue whether there was non-compliance of the direction issued by the Division Bench while deciding the W.P.(C) 4127/2013 on 22.04.2016. We have already set out hereinabove the relevant extract of the said decision. In the ultimate analysis, the Division Bench left it open to the Government of NCT of Delhi to take its own decisions. There was no direction to the GNCTD to implement the judgement/order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent. In fact, the effect of the directions issued by the Division Bench, particularly in para-10, was to leave it open to the Government to take its own decisions after examining the aspect of equivalence, which the Government has so done.
12. In our view, when the matter was laid before the learned Single Judge in the contempt case, the learned Single Judge was obliged to look at the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21 operative directions issued by the Division Bench, and the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the contempt case, was circumscribed by the operative directions passed in the writ petition preferred by the appellant. The learned Single Judge could not have gone beyond those directions, since the jurisdiction being exercised by him was a limited jurisdiction. The purpose of exercise of the said jurisdiction was to secure implementation of the judgement. The learned Single Judge has, in fact, examined the claim of the respondent on merits, which was not permissible. In J. S. Parihar (supra), the Supreme Court observed:
"6. The question then is whether the Division Bank was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr. S.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Single Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21 be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re- exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench."
13. In Midnapore Peoples Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with the scope of the right of appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In paragraph 11, the conclusions drawn by the Court were set out. For our purpose, conclusions III and IV are relevant, and read as follows:
"11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarised thus:
xxxxx III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of "jurisdiction to punish for contempt" and, therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21 inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions."
14. The learned Single Judge has, however, examined the respondent's claim on merits, which was not permissible for him to do in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction. The merits of the respondent's claim had already been examined by the Tribunal and, thereafter, by the Division Bench. The directions issued by the Tribunal had merged with the directions issued by the Division Bench - taken note of hereinabove. The discussion undertaken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order reads as follows:
"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.
5. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21 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. The 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."
15. The aforesaid exercise undertaken by the learned Single Judge was beyond jurisdiction, and also went contrary to the directions issued by the Division Bench.
16. Hence, we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 14.01.2021 passed in Cont. Case (C) 633/2017.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J JANUARY 18, 2022 SS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.01.2022 19:35:21