SANJAY CHAUHAN AND ORS. Vs. MCD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Writ Petition has been filed by one Sanjay Chauhan and seven others (the petitioners), challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) dated 02.09.2009 in T.A. No. 1028/2010 and order dated 20.09.2010 passed in R.A. No. 247/2009 in T.A. No. 1028/2010. The Tribunal vide its order dated 02.09.2009 allowed the T.A. No. 1028/2010, which was filed by the respondents No. 2 to 25 challenging the seniority list dated 10.02.2005 in the grade of Upper Divisional Clerks (UDCs) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The review application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on the ground that Review Application is not the appropriate remedy to reagitate issues or for correction of what is claimed to be an erroneous order. Some of the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the MCD has framed regulations for the purpose of recruitment to the post of UDC, which inter -alia stipulates as under:

(2.) THE MCD issued various office orders dated 27.07.1995, 15.11.1995, and 10.01.1996, promoting certain officials in the grade of LDCs to the post of UDC on adhoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.1200 -2040. These officials include the respondents No. 2 to 25 herein. Simultaneously, on 20.05.1997 certain LDCs, who have been declared successful in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) which is one of the mode of recruitment were also promoted as UDCs in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -2040. We have been told, even though the promotion order states the promotion to be adhoc, this was primarily because of pending of Writ Petition No. 4548/1996, Sh. B.K. Sharma & Ors. vs. MCD in this Court.

(3.) THE said seniority list dated 10.02.2005 was challenged by the respondents No. 2 to 25 herein by filing a Writ Petition No. 6659/2005 before this Court, claiming their seniority from the date of adhoc promotion as UDC. The MCD filed counter affidavit to the writ petition. The said Writ Petition was transferred to the Tribunal and was numbered as T.A. no. 1028/2010. On the pleadings so filed by the parties, the Tribunal heard the matter and allowed the T.A. by directing to re -determine the seniority of respondents No. 2 to 25 by reckoning the adhoc officiation by issuing a fresh seniority list. In this order, the counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 25 relied upon as many as 9 judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. The contention of the counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 25 was, that the adhoc promotions were in accordance with the rules under 75% quota by considering the seniority and service records and as such the seniority shall relate back to the date of promotion on adhoc basis. The stand of the MCD has been primarily that the respondents No. 2 to 25 were granted adhoc promotion as UDC without holding the DPC and those who were qualified LDCE, were appointed on regular basis. Some of the petitioners herein, who were private respondents before the Tribunal filed a reply to the petition and oppose the claim of the respondents No. 2 to 25 on merit as well as on delay.