Radhey Shyam Garg vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28th October, 2009 in T.A. No. 1121/2009, titled as Radhey Shyam Garg v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing the original application of the petitioner seeking appointment as Assistant Engineer (Civil) against the direct recruitment quota.

The relevant facts to comprehend the pleas of the petitioner are that he joined as Work Assistant in MCD on 05.02.1983, and was appointed as Junior Engineer on 25th August, 1987. He was reverted as Work Assistant on 25.02.1988, and reappointed as Junior Engineer from 2nd June, 1989.

In 1990 direct recruitment was made for the post of Assistant Engineer, but the petitioner had not applied though he had a degree, but because he did not have two years experience after obtaining the requisite degree.

It appears that the Selection List of direct appointees was challenged in various other writ petitions where the petitioner was not a party as he did not have two years requisite experience. The petitions were allowed and those persons who did not have two years requisite experience but who had filed the writ petitions in the facts and circumstances of those writ petitions were subsequently appointed as Assistant Engineer pursuant to selection undertaken in 1990.

The petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 16933/2005, seeking appointment from 1990 though he did not have requisite experience. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was decided on 14th September, 2006 declining to appoint petitioner as Assistant Engineer pursuant to the selection made in 1990. The petitioner was, however, allowed to make a representation to the respondents.

The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the respondents which was rejected by order dated 17th October, 2006. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his representation and again sought appointment pursuant to the selection made in 1990 on the ground that similarly placed persons who did not have two years requisite experience, and who had filed the petitions were appointed as Assistant Junior Engineer pursuant to selection made in 1990 though they also did not have two years requisite experience after obtaining the degree.

The Tribunal has noted while dismissing the original application of the petitioner that he was appointed as Junior Engineer in 1989 and for the post of Assistant Engineer he did not have two years requisite experience in 1990, therefore, he did not apply for appointment by direct recruitment. This was also noticed that some of the junior engineers who did not have two years requisite experience had filed the writ petitions which were allowed in the facts and circumstances of those case, however, in case of the petitioner his writ petition was dismissed, declining his prayer to appoint him as Assistant Engineer since 1990 though he did not have requisite experience despite petitioner bringing to the knowledge of the Tribunal order passed in case of other junior engineers who had been appointed as Assistant engineers without having two years experience. The petitioner was however, given liberty to make a representation.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner emphatically contended that since he was given a right to make representation he is entitled to be appointed as Assistant Engineer though he had not completed two years and did not have requisite experience and even though he had not applied for the selection made in 1990 on the ground that similarly placed persons had have been appointed as Assistant Engineers since 1990.

The plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted because he had challenged his non appointment as Assistant Engineer though he had not applied for selection made in 1990 which was rejected by the Tribunal. This is also admitted that the petitioner had not even applied for selection as he did not fulfill the requisite eligibility conditions. This is also not disputed that the order of the Tribunal dismissing his earlier petition was not challenged by him. Merely because the petitioner was given a right to make a representation and therefore, on petitioner making the representation and on rejection of the representation by the respondents, the finding of the Tribunal in the earlier original application will not become in operative or nullity. Consequently the decision of the Tribunal dismissing his petition cannot be faulted on the ground which has been raised by the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not have any right to be appointed as Assistant Engineer pursuant to the selection made in 1990 in which the petitioner had not applied, or participated and as he did not have requisite eligibility conditions. If petitions of some of the junior Engineers have been allowed despite those junior Engineers not having the requisite eligibility conditions, the petitioner cannot claim equality, as his petition seeking similar relief had been declined earlier which was not challenged by him.

In the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as it does not have any such illegality or irregularity which will require interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is without any merit, and it is, therefore, dismissed.