Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Niranjan Dev Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 1 December, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi T.A.No.276/2009 This the 1st day of December 2009 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Niranjan Dev Sharma s/o Shri Kanchhi Mal, aged 52 years r/o 3/87, Tukhmirpur Extension Delhi-94 ..Applicant (By Advocates: Shri Manu Mridul and Shri Anand K Vatsya) Versus 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (through its Commissioner) Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi 2. Director Education Municipal Corporation of Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Biji Rajesh for Shri Gaurang Kanth) O R D E R
Shri Shanker Raju:
Applicant is being aggrieved by ad hoc promotions given to Assistant Teachers (Music), Assistant Teachers (Physical Education), Assistant Teachers (Drawing & Painting) and other categories of teachers and Nursery Teachers as Headmaster/Principal (Primary School) whereby the applicant, an Assistant Teacher, was denied the same.
2. Learned counsel would contend that ad hoc promotions are undisputedly given on resolution of the Corporation whereby amendment has been proposed in recruitment rules for the post of Principal, MCD, Primary School for which 75% posts will be filled on promotion on inter-se-seniority basis from Teachers (Primary), Teachers (Music) and Teachers (Drawing & Painting), etc. and 25% by direct recruitment.
3. Learned counsel places reliance on an order passed subsequent to the writ petition dated 12.11.2009 issued by the MCD whereby ad hoc promotions were made on approval of Director of Education and the seniority of the applicant in his discipline as Primary Teacher has been ignored.
4. Also relied upon a decision in Shri Sudeshwar Mehto v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & another (TA-233/2009) decided on 14.5.2009 whereby such an ad hoc promotion on proposed amended rules has not been found favoured with in law.
5. On the other hand, learned proxy counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that there are about 6 categories of teachers in MCD schools. Whereas the amendment ibid has been proposed but on the basis of proposal ad hoc promotion has been given.
6. In our considered view, till the draft recruitment rules come to being on approval and promulgation by notification, statutory rules / regulations in vogue are to be followed as per dicta in Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry & another v. V Ramakrishnan & others, 2005 (2) SC SLJ 495. Moreover, in the matter of recruitment rules till they are declared invalid or unconstitutional have applications as per the decision of Apex Court in Union of India & others v. S.K. Saigal & others, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 856.
7. In the light of the dicta of Apex Court and also in the light of decision of this Tribunal in Shri Sudeshwar Mehtos case (supra), the methodology adopted by the respondents to promote on ad hoc basis under proposed rules certain feeder categories teachers as Principals is not approved of in law. However, we find that the persons, who have been promoted since not impleaded as a party, we direct disposal of this TA with a direction to the respondents to consider under the erstwhile recruitment rules the claim of the applicant for promotion even on ad hoc basis as Principal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that when such a promotion is given, it shall relate back to the date when others are given, i.e., from 12.11.2009 on admissible consequences in law. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/