KULDEEP SINGH Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year 1996, the petitioners along with many others were engaged as Domestic Breading Checkers (DBCs) on daily wage/contract basis. That was the year, when Dengue had spread in Delhi like an epidemic and chaotic conditions prevailed. As a result, Domestic Breading Checkers were engaged in large scale. Admittedly, the petitioners were minors at that time. It is not disputed by the respondents that the Domestic Breading Checkers (DBCs) are engaged every year on daily/contract basis. It appears that there was some kind of ad-hocism going on in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the matter of engaging persons as DBCs. This led to the filing of number of writ petitions in this court titled Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs. MCD and Ors. which were disposed of by order dated November 13, 2006 with a direction to the respondent/Municipal Corporation of Delhi to take into consideration all the relevant material including the period or periods of service put in by the petitioners therein who claimed to have been working w.e.f. 19/20th October, 1996 while preparing the final seniority list and also the appropriate place at which they could be placed. Pursuant to the above directions, in May 2006, a public notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi inviting applications from those candidates who had worked as Domestic Breading Checkers/Health Workers since 1996 or thereafter and who were matriculate or passed class X from a recognised Board and were between the age of 18-35 years at the time of initial appointment. It seems that pursuant to the circular, a seniority list has been prepared.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that they have not been placed in the seniority list with reference to their initial date of engagement i.e. from the year 1996, on the ground, that they were not between the age of 18-35 years at that time. This, it is argued, is contrary to the directions of this Court dated November 13, 2006.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the petitioners have been kept in the seniority list by taking 2004 as the year of their engagement because by then, they had attained the age of majority and they also possessed the matriculation certificate. Should the petitioners be kept in the seniority list with reference to the year 1996 or with reference to the year 2004, is the question before me.