AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Gaur, J
W.P.(C) 10880/2017 & C.M. 44539/2017; 44544/2017 & 44747/2017
In this petition, petitioners seek a mandamus to respondents to consider their name for appearing in the “Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination (LDCE) in W-06 (scale `8800-20000) to be conducted on 11th, 13th & 15th December, 2017 and to direct first respondent to include the
name of petitioners in the list of eligible candidates for the North Zone, issue roll numbers and inform them about the date and venue of the
examination.
This is second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, petitioners had sought regularization of their services while claiming that they have
worked on fixed terms on the post of W-4 & W-1 and their services were illegally terminated on 9th January, 2012. The order which came to be
passed in the first round of litigation was to the effect that petitioners have no right to seek regularization of their services in the light of Supreme
Court’s decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & ors.(2006) 4 SCC 1 and vide order of 11th February, 2015, respondents were
directed to consider grant of age relaxation to petitioners as and when appointments to the posts of in question is made. It was also directed vide
aforesaid order of 11th February, 2015 that if permissible, benefit of experience be also granted to petitioners.
Vide Notification of 3rd November, 2017, respondents had sought to fill up the vacancies in W-6 in the “Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination (LDCE)â€. Petitioners have now approached the Court at the eleventh hour, as the examinations are to commence on Monday i.e. 11th
December, 2017. It is pertinent to note that petitioners had not made any Representation to respondents nor they have pleaded anywhere as to how
they came to about the Notification in question. Petitioners are totally silent on this aspect. In such a case, no discretion can be exercised to permit
petitioners to appear in the aforesaid departmental examination. Such a view is being taken as learned counsel for respondents submits that this
examination is a departmental examination and is not an open examination and so, petitioners cannot be allowed to appear in this examination and
whenever direct recruitments to the posts under W-1 and W-4 category are made, then petitioners would be certainly considered in the light of order
of 11th February, 2015, passed in the earlier litigation.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition and the applications are disposed of while clarifying that the “Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination (LDCE)†in question is being conducted for inhouse candidates and petitioners are out of service since 2012, and therefore,
the relief sought in this petition cannot be granted.