Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dharamvir Singh vs Delhi Jal Board, Govt. Of Nctd on 7 October, 2023
1
OA No. 693 of 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 693/2016
M.A. No. 689/2016
Reserved on: 11.09.2023
Pronounced on: 07.10.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
1. Dharamvir Singh, Aged about 53 years,
S/o Sh. H.P. Singh,
R/o H.No.112/P-3 Block,
New Roshan Pura, Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
2. Pramod Kumar, Aged about 52 years
S/o Sh. S.C. Sharma,
R/o Qtr. No.3, Type-2,
DJB Staff Qtrs., Model Town-III,
Delhi - 110 009.
3. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Aged about 51 years
S/o Sh. Charan Singh,
R/o C-74A, Gali No.3, Ganga Vihar,
Delhi - 110 094.
4. Chandan Singh Rawat, Aged about 53 years
S/o Sh. Bhagat Singh,
C/o EE (SDW-VIII), Dwarka,
New Delhi.
5. Mukesh Chand, Aged about 50 years
S/o Sh. Naresh Chand,
R/o 9/1920, Gali No.2,
Kailash Nagar, Delhi - 110 031.
6. Satyaveer Singh, Aged about 53 years
S/o Sh. Shyam Giri,
R/o H.No.06, Lokesh Gali,
Sushila Garden, Mandawali Extn.,
Delhi - 110 093. ...Applicants
(By Advocate: Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj)
2
OA No. 693 of 2016
Versus
1. Delhi Jal Board through
Chief Executive Officer,
Varunalaya Bhawan, Phase-II,
Jhandewalan,
New Delhi - 110 005.
2. The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Karkardooma,
Delhi - 110 092.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Sumedha Sharma,
Mr. Vishwendra Verma &
Ms. Parul Tomar
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
M.A. No. 689/2016 For the reasons recorded in this M.A. seeking to join in a single OA, the same stands allowed. O. A. No. 693/2016
Learned counsel for the applicants stated as under:-
1.1 The applicants are working in Electrical and Mechanical Divisions of the then Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking [DWS&SDU) [presently Delhi Jal Board (DJB)].
1.2 As 40 posts of Junior Engineer existed in the year 1991 in the office of DWS&SDU) [presently DJB], respondent no.1 invited applications for direct 3 OA No. 693 of 2016 recruitment from those employees working in Electrical and Mechanical Divisions who had at least 3 years' experience in the aforesaid Divisions in addition to Diploma in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering. As per the recruitment rules only 10% of the vacancies could be filled through promotion of Work Assistants, being feeder category, and that too only if suitable/eligible candidates were available.
1.3 Aggrieved, the applicants approached Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of WP(C) No.4932/1992.
Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 02.03.1995 permitted petitioners to apply for the post pursuant to Circular dated 15.02.1995 and the respondents were to accept the same notwithstanding the facts that the applicants had crossed the age of 35 years. The aforesaid Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal and numbered as TA No.987/2009 and was decided vide orders dated 13.11.2009 in the following terms:-
"10...In the relevant year in this case being 1982 and vacancies are available being 40, it is determined that 04 posts of JE/M/E) are to be filled up by promotion and 36 posts by direct recruitment. In that year, if 04 vacancies were not filled up by promotion since eligible feeder category employees were not available, those 04 posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment.4 OA No. 693 of 2016
11...The respondents are competent to engage DSSSB or any other agency admissible for the direct recruitment purpose. Whatever was the direct recruitment practice (Interview or Written Tests + Interview) in the relevant year must be followed to fill up those vacancies. This exercise shall be completed within 3 months from the date of this order. It is needless to mention that those of the Applicants who get selected and appointed in the post of JE (M/E) will be positioned from appropriate year notionally with no arrears of pay accruing to them. We also direct that those Work Assistants who were promoted to the direct recruitment quota of JE (M/E), are to vacate such posts."
1.4 In compliance of the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal, the respondents were required to consider the applicants' claim for appointment as a separate class applying relaxed standard in age, but they compelled the applicants to compete with young blood and finally declared them unsuccessful. 1.5 The action of the respondents in preparing the combined merit list of the applicants, who had applied for consideration of their claim as JE (E&M) in the year 1991 and of those candidates who applied in the years 2007 & 2011 and applying different criteria than the one as applicable in the year 1991, is highly illegal and unjustified. Once this Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court in their earlier litigation made it clear that the applicants are suitable for appointment to the post of JE (E&M), they were to be adjudged as per the 5 OA No. 693 of 2016 criteria and procedure followed in the year 1991 itself. The respondents were not right in adopting different criteria and deny appointment to the applicants. In other words, candidature of only those candidates were required to be considered for selection to the post of JE (E&M) against 40 vacancies, who were meeting the eligibility criteria at the relevant point of time and not the one introduced in the year 2009. 1.6 Aggrieved, the applicants filed the instant OA seeking the following relief:-
"(a) To declare the action of the respondents in declaring the applicants as unsuccessful for appointment to the post of JE (E&M) by applying the criteria different than the one directed to be followed by the Hon'ble Tribunal vie order dated 13.11.2009 and Hon'ble High Court, as illegal and arbitrary and issue directions to re-assess the applicants suitability and prepare the merit list by treating the candidates of 1991 as separate class.
(b) To quash and set aside the impugned selection made to the post of JE (E&M) pursuant to advertisement dated 18.05.2012 and direct the respondents to reconsider the case of applicants for selection to the post of JE (E&M) as a separate class and prepare the select list as per the comparative merit of such candidates who had applied in the year 1991 or direct the respondents to prepare the select list for appointment to the post of JE (E&M) afresh amongst the candidates who had applied with applicants in 1991 and on the basis of marks in interview and weightage/marks prescribed for service record and experience.
(c) To direct the respondents to finalise the selection of applicants as per notification of 1991 by following the same methodology as followed in 1991 and not through DSSSB.
(d) To allow the O.A. with costs.6 OA No. 693 of 2016
(e) Pass such other direction or directions order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice."
2. Per contra, respondent no.1 filed a counter affidavit admitting to the extent that the erstwhile DWS&SD undertaking now DJB had invited applications during the years 1991 and 1995 for filling up posts of JE(E&M) against direct recruitment from departmental candidates in terms of the then notified recruitment rules. However, due to administrative reasons, the selection procedure could not be completed.
2.1 Further, in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal in TA No.987/2009 (supra), requisition was sent to DSSSB on 08.02.2010 for filling up of 42 vacant posts of JE (E&M) and, in turn, DSSSB published an Advertisement on 18.05.2012 with age relaxation to departmental candidates, who had applied for the post against direct recruitment. The examination was conducted in 2015 by DSSSB; result was declared in the same year and appointments were made strictly as per the recommendations of DSSSB.
3. Respondent no.2 has filed a separate counter affidavit stating that this Tribunal vide order dated 13.11.2009 7 OA No. 693 of 2016 observed that the respondents are competent to engage DSSSB or any other agency admissible for the purpose of direct recruitment. Whatever was the direct recruitment practice (Interview or Written Tests + Interview) in the relevant year must be followed to fill up those vacancies. High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 07.10.2013 disposed of Writ Petition No.4239/2013 in the following terms:-
"(i) The petitioners shall submit their applications pursuant to the advertisement in Employment News on 18.05.2012 by October 31,2013.
(ii) The DJB on receipt of applications from the petitioners would forward the same to DSSSB within a period of 2 weeks.
(iii) The DSSSB would consider the candidature of the petitioners in terms of process of interview only as has been directed by Tribunal in its order dated 13.11.2009 while disposing of TA No.987/2019."
3.1 As per the new Examination Scheme of the Board, selection of candidates for the post in question was to be made on the basis of two-tier examination while Hon'ble High Court had ordered that the selection of departmental candidates would be made on the basis of interview only. It was observed that it is not possible to make the merit list on the basis of two different modes of selection, i.e., written examination for general candidates and interview for departmental candidates. To have a different selection process for 8 OA No. 693 of 2016 the departmental candidates, number of posts need to be earmarked for them. Therefore, it was decided that DJB may be requested to identify the number of vacancies out of the total number of vacancies (Total-
39) which could be filled by departmental candidates. Accordingly, DJB vide letter dated 16.05.2014 sent requisition to DSSSB for filling up the post of JE (E&M) against direct recruitment without identifying number of vacancies to be filled by departmental candidates as the Hon'ble High Court had not passed any order to identify number of vacancies out of total number of vacancies which could be filled by departmental candidates.
3.2 The matter was again discussed in Board's meeting on 20.05.2014 noting that 7047 applications had been received in response to the advertisement. Therefore, it would not be possible to make a combined merit list for different groups of candidates, who are to be examined through two different processes. Hence, with the approval of Lt. Lieutenant Governor, Delhi a decision was taken for change in the examination scheme for the post as under:-
"(a) Candidates numbering 7047 who applied in response to adv.no.2/2012 in the year 2012 will be 9 OA No. 693 of 2016 screened through a written exam and approximate no.of candidates 6 times of the total vacancies will be called for the interview.
(b) All the departmental candidates who have submitted their applications upto 31/10/2013 will also be called for interview in pursuance to the High Court's order.
(c) A combined merit list of both sets of candidates will be made on the basis of interview only.
3.3 As such, recruitment to the post has been done strictly as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court/Tribunal. It is noticed that neither the Hon'ble High Court nor the Tribunal in any of their orders directed the respondents to give weightage to such departmental candidates over the applicants under direct recruitment quota on the ground of their service record. Hence, the contention of the applicants in this behalf is misleading and misconceived.
4. The applicants have filed rejoinders to the respective counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents denying the contents made therein and reiterated the averments made in the OA.
5. We have heard Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Sumedha Sharma & Ms. Sakshi Popli, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
10OA No. 693 of 2016
6. ANALYSIS 6.1 We find that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dharambir Singh & Ors. vs. V.K. Singh & Anr. [WP(C) No.4239/2013 decided on 07.10.2013] in the backdrop of facual matrix of the case as highlighted thereto, observed as under:-
"1. In the year 1991 the erstwhile Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking (now Delhi Jal Board)invited applications from departmental candidates to fill up the post of Junior Engineer.
2. The petitioners and others also applied for the post which was to be filled through a process of interview.
3. As the mode of recruitment was changed to promotion the petitioners and other similarly placed persons filed Writ Petition No. 4930/1993 before this Court.
4. The writ petition was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal and was numbered as T.A. No. 987/2009. The Tribunal disposed of the T.A. vide its order dated November 13, 2009 in terms of the following directions:
"The RR clearly stipulates that percentage of the vacancies to be filled up in the following manner (1) 10% by promotion failing which by direct recruitment, and (2) 90% by direct recruitment. In the relevant year in this case being 1992 and vacancies there available being 40, it is determined that 4 posts of JE (M/E) are to be filled up by promotion and 36 posts by direct recruitment. In that year, if 4 vacancies were not filed up by promotion since eligible feeder category employees were not available, those 4 posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment.
The next issue is procedure to be adopted for direct recruitment. The Respondents are competent to engage DSSSB or any other agency admissible for the direct recruitment purpose. Whatever was the direct recruitment practice Interview or Written tests + Interview) in the relevant year must be followed to fill up those vacancies. This exercise shall be completed within 3 months from the date of this order. It is needless to mention that those of the 11 OA No. 693 of 2016 Applicants who get selected and appointed in the post of JE (M/E) will be positioned from appropriate year notionally with no arrears of pay accruing to them. We also direct that those Work Assistants who were promoted to the direct recruitment quota of JE (M/ E), are to vacate such posts.
Those of the Applicants who have applied for the post of JE (MandE) then direct recruitment quota are eligible for the age relaxation as already ordered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi?
5. As the new recruitment agency was assigned the selection process, the petitioners and others filed Original Application No.4277/2011 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of by the Tribunal in terms of the following directions:
"It is further stated by respondent No.2 that after advertisement the names of the departmental candidates will be forwarded to scrutiny branch of this office for issuance of roll numbers to them.However, learned counsel for respondent No. 1
submits that requisition has been sent for fling up of 42 posts of Junior Engineer instead of 39 posts.
Be that as it may, since respondent No.2 has stated that an advertisement for the post of Junior Engineer will be published shortly and thereafter follow-up action shall be taken by the scrutiny branch, so as to process the applications of departmental candidates, we are of the view that the present OA can be disposed of at this stage with a direction to respondent No.2 (DSSSB) to issue advertisement on or before 30.5.2012 and simultaneously also take steps for scrutinizing the applications of the departmental candidates, which process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
6. It is the case of the petitioners that when the respondents were not taking any action for scrutiny of their applications they moved C.P. No. 769/2012 in. Original Application No. 4277/201 1, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated April 30, 2013 stating that the petitioners had not applied for the post for which DSSSB advertised vacancies on May 18, 2012. It is the case of the petitioners that they had already applied for the post in the year 1991 and their applications are with the department and moreover the advertisement was for conducting examination (preliminary and main) for vacancies other than 40 original vacancies of 1992 and decision is already in existence 12 OA No. 693 of 2016 from granting selected candidates notional seniority from 1992."
6.2 After aforementioned observations, Hon'ble High Court issued the following directions:-
"(c). The DSSSB would consider the candidature of the petitioners in terms of the process of 'interview only' as has been directed by the Tribunal in its order dated November 13, 2009 while disposing of TA No.987/2009.
6.3 Pursuant to the above directions, the respondents issued Interview Policy on 08.12.2013. 6.4 A coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, taking into account contentions of both the parties and the recruitment rules, disposed of TA No.987/2009 with the following directions:-
10. The RR clearly stipulates that percentage of the vacancies to be filled up in the following manner (1) 10% by promotion failing which by direct recruitment, and (2) 90% by direct recruitment. In the relevant year in this case being 1992 and vacancies there available being 40, it is determined that 4 posts of JE (M/E) are to be filled up by promotion and 36 posts by direct recruitment. In that year, if 4 vacancies were not filled up by promotion since eligible feeder category employees were not available, those 4 posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment.
11. The next issue is procedure to be adopted for direct recruitment. The Respondents are competent to engage DSSSB or any other agency admissible for the direct recruitment purpose. Whatever was the direct recruitment practice (Interview or Written tests +Interview) in the relevant year must be followed to fill up those vacancies. This exercise shall be completed within 3 months from the date of this order. It is needless to mention that those of the Applicants who get selected and appointed in the post of JE (M/E) will be positioned from appropriate year notionally with no arrears of pay accruing to them. We also direct that 13 OA No. 693 of 2016 those Work Assistants who were promoted to the direct recruitment quota of JE (M/E), are to vacate such posts.
12. Those of the Applicants who have applied for the post of JE (M&E) then direct recruitment quota are eligible for the age relaxation as already ordered by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi."
6.5 On perusal of the above, we observe that the only direction passed in the earlier round of litigation was in terms of para 12(c) of the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi delivered on 07.10.2013 (supra) whereby DSSSB had been directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners in terms of the process of 'interview only' as had been directed by the Tribunal in its order dated November 13, 2009 while disposing of TA No.987/2009.
6.6 We further find that there is neither any material nor any record to show that the Interview Policy dated 08.12.2013 has not been adhered to, nor is there any challenge to the said Interview Policy in the present OA. The concession qua participation had been granted by the courts in an earlier round of litigation and consequently the applicants had already been allowed to participate in the selection process as per the directions of the Tribunal/ Hon'ble High Court. In the decisions referred to 14 OA No. 693 of 2016 above, we do not find that any direction had been given to the respondents to give weightage to the departmental candidates over the applicants under the direct recruitment quota taking into account their service record.
6.7 In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the considered opinion that the applicants having participated in selection process cannot now challenge the interview process in absence of any material on record to prove their claim.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 In view of the above analysis, we find that the present OA being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. We order accordingly.
7.2 No costs.
(Manish Garg) (Anand Mathur) Member (J) Member (A) /na/