M BASSI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the seniority list of the Assistant Labour Commissioners of the Labour Department issued by Delhi Administration on 8-5-1981. By the impugned list respondent No. 4 is shown as senior to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the seniority fixed is erroneous. Hence this petition.

(2.) In exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi notified on 15-2-1963 the Rules for regulating the method of recruitment and the qualifications necessary for appointment to the post of Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner. The method of recruitment provided in column No. 10 of the Schedule is by promotion 50% and by direct recruitment 50 per cent. After the coming into force of the Rules one Sh. M. M. Kher, had been appointed as Assistant Labour Commissioner by way of promotion. The next vacancy had been filled by one Harcharan Singh by direct recruitment. It is also common case that the next post thereafter had been filled up by one M. L. Dhawan, out of promotion quota. Thus in 1969, the next vacancy which had to t be filled up was to be filled up at point No. 6, and by direct recruitment. Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) advertised the said post reserved the same for Scheduled Castes only. The post was a temporary one. As the pest had been advertised and reserved for Scheduled Castes neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 4 nor other officers who were not Scheduled Castes candidates were called for interview, though all of them had applied for the post. This led the respondent No. 4 and some others to file a writ petition being C. W. 90311969 in this court on the ground that this had been wrongly shown as a reserved vacancy. During the pendency of writ petition (90311969) another vacancy fell vacant which according to rules had to go to a promotion quota. The D.P.C. met and considered the eligible candidates. It selected petitioner and one Dutta who were senior to the petitioner. The petitioner being the senior was placed at point No., 7 and Dutta at No. 9. The petitioner joined. as Assistant Labour Commissioner on 31-3-1970, vacancy at No. 6 is shown against direct recruitment post for which advertisement had been issued in 1969. Again another post fell vacant which was in the quota of direct recruitment. Advertisement was issued on 21-3-1970 (the last date for the receipt of the applications being 20-4-1970), the post being a permanent one, respondent No. 4 amongst others applied and was selected. On 29-7-1970 he joined the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner. This was obviously a selection after the petitioner and consequently respondent No. 4 was shown at No. 8 and this w^s reflected when on 28-10-1976 Delhi Administration issued a final seniority list of Assistant Labour Commissioners. The position shown in the seniority list of 1976 was as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_375_ILR(DEL)1_1985Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) it may be mentioned that the seniority amongst Delhi Administration employees is governed by Delhi Administration (seniority) Rules 1965. Rule 7 reads as under :