DESH RAJ Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issues, both factual and legal, raised in these appeals are identical and similar, therefore, we propose to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment and order. We may, at this stage, mention that the appellants herein had filed separate writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, which were disposed of by a common judgment and order, which is under challenge in these appeals.

(2.) The appellants were initially appointed on ad hoc or daily wage basis. They were subsequently regularised on their respective posts, where they were appointed on ad hoc or daily wage basis. All the appellants were working as Assistant Pump Drivers/Fitters/Sewer Cleaning Machine Driver etc. There is also no dispute to the fact that all the aforesaid posts are recognised as permanent posts in the Delhi Jal Board. The contention of the appellants is that they should be held to be entitled to work as Work Assistants in terms of the policy formulated by the Delhi Jal Board in the year 1992. The aforesaid contention did not find favour with the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petitions by recording detailed reasons for arriving at the said conclusions.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, these appeals are filed, on which we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The aforesaid posts, to which appellants were initially appointed and against which they were regualrised, are the posts of Pump Drivers/Assistant Pump Drivers/Fitters/Sewer Cleaning Machine Driver which are recognised and statutory posts under the recruitment rules of the respondent/erstwhile Water Supply and Sewerage Disposal Undertaking. Subsequently, Delhi Jal Board was created and services of the appellants were transferred to the Board and, therefore, the appellants are guided now by the Delhi Jal Board Recruitment Rules. Under the said Rules also, the aforesaid posts, as also the post of Work Assistant, exist. According to the recruitment rules to the post of Work Assistant, the method of recruitment that is provided is by way of direct recruitment and not by promotion or by deputation. The contentions that were raised before us by the counsel for the appellants were that under the policy of Delhi Water Supply and Sewerage Board, 1992, the appellants were entitled to be appointed in the aforesaid capacity as Work Assistants as they are eligible and also possess all the educational qualification for the said post. It was contended that as per the policy of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the appellants were eligible and should be appointed to the post of Work Assistants.