High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 04 DEL CK 0052

Bhoolay Ram Sharma and Others vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 21 April 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J
CASE NUMBER
WP (C) 2919 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 617 words

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The eight petitioners are working as Malaria beldars in the Anti Malaria Department of the MCD in Shahdara Zone. Their services were regularized pursuant to the orders in the earlier writ petition filed by them. It is the case of the petitioners that the next post in the channel of promotion in the case of the petitioners is of Surveillance Workers/Basic Health Workers/Assistant Malaria Inspectors and which is a non selection post and the mode of recruitment, as per Recruitment Regulation w.e.f. 1974 was, 50% by direct appointment and 50% was by promotion from categories of Anti Malaria/DDT Beldars & Jamadars with one year experience in the case of matriculates and ten years experience in the case of middle pass. However, the MCD vide Notification dated 12th August, 1985 changed the percentage of recruitment to the post of Surveillance Workers/Basic Health Workers/Assistant Malaria Inspector from 50:50 as aforesaid earlier, to 95% for direct recruits and 5% for departmental candidates/promotees. The scope/possibility of the departmental candidates/promotees to be posted as Assistant Malaria Inspector was thus reduced drastically. The petitioners thus filed this writ petition for quashing the Notification of 12th August, 1985 and for a direction for restoration of the recruitment ratio of 50:50. Certain other directions are also sought in the writ petition.

2.

Rule was issued vide ex parte order dated 12th May, 1999 and the respondents were also directed to keep eight posts of Assistant Malaria Inspectors vacant until further orders. No counter affidavit was filed by either of the respondents. It is noted in the order dated 26th April, 2001 that another similar matter was also pending before this Court. The interim order was made absolute on 29th November, 2001 and the matter adjourned thereafter from time to time. On 17th February, 2010 the Counsel for the petitioners stated that the respondents were considering change of recruitment rules to provide for promotion of beldars as Assistant Malaria Inspectors and upon which happening, the grievance made in this petition will be satisfied. It was also informed that in another writ petition for the same relief, a direction in this regard had been issued and the Notification to the said effect was expected shortly.

3.

Today the counsels have informed that Recruitment Regulations to the post of Assistant Malaria Inspector in MCD have been notified on 16th February, 2010. A copy of the said Notification has been handed over in the court. The Counsel for the petitioners however states that notwithstanding the said Notification the petitioners have not been promoted as yet. The Counsel for the respondent MCD states that she needs to seek instructions.

4.

However, considering that the matter has been pending for long, it is not deemed expedient to adjourn the same. The petitioners being satisfied with the Recruitment Regulations now notified, the only thing which remains is their promotion in accordance with the said Regulations and subject to their eligibility in accordance with the said Regulations.

5.

The respondent MCD is accordingly directed to, within three months of today, consider the petitioners for promotion under the Recruitment Regulations notified on 16th February, 2010. If the petitioners are eligible for promotion in accordance with the said Recruitment Regulations, the respondent MCD to, within the said three months, also promote the petitioners. However, if the respondent MCD, after considering within the time aforesaid, does not promote the petitioners and the petitioners are aggrieved from the decision to be taken by the respondent MCD within three months, the petitioners shall be entitled to apply afresh.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Copy of the order be given dasti to the Counsel for the parties.