Arun Kumar vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—I have already dealt with a similar issue with respect to appointment made to a post in the respondent No. 2-Institute as per the judgment delivered in the case of Amrish Chanana & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. in W.P.(C) 1045/2013 decided on 3.5.2013. As per the facts which emerge on record in the present case there was a sanctioned post to which the petitioner was appointed, petitioner''s selection was through regular recruitment process where candidates were called through advertisement in Newspaper, petitioner was qualified in terms of the advertisement and was given the same appointment letter and which has been commented upon and interpreted in Amrish Chanana''s case (supra).

Though counsel for the respondent No. 2 states that an LPA has been filed against the judgment in Amrish Chanana''s case (supra), however, it is conceded that there is no stay of operation of the impugned judgment and thus there is no impediment to decide the present case.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has sought to distinguish the judgment in the case of Amrish Chanana and Ors. (supra) by stating that in the present case petitioner was wrongly appointed against a different roster point post, however, I find that there is no averment in the counter-affidavit that if the correct roster point system was followed there would be no vacancies available for petitioner to be appointed to such a post. Since there is a vacancy at the correct roster point sanctioned post for the petitioner to be appointed, therefore I do not think that the judgment of Amrish Chanana and Ors. (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, adopting the ratio in the case of Amrish Chanana''s (supra), this writ petition is also allowed and the impugned advertisement dated 2.2.2013 is quashed. Petitioner will be treated as having been appointed on regular basis to the post to which petitioner has been selected and appointed, subject however that the petitioner successfully completes the probationary period. Respondents are restrained in any manner treating the services of the petitioner as contractual. Parties to bear their own costs. CM 3745/2013 is also disposed of accordingly.