UDHAM DADHWANI Vs. UNION PUBLIC SERVCE COMMISSIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relevant facts of the writ petition and C the reasons which led its reference to a Full Bench may briefly be stated. When the writ petition was filed, the petitioners and respomdents 5 to 39 were Assistant Engineers serving the Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. While all the petitioners Were appointed by direct recruitment, the first five of them are holders of diplomas in engineering while the others are holders of degrees in engineering. Respondents 5 to 39 who were already in the service of the Corporation were appointed as Assistant Engineers by proOlOtiori as distinguished from the petifioners who were appointed by direct recruitment. "The petitioners are, therefore, direct recruits while these respoadents are promotees. 50 per cent of the total number of posts of Assistant Engineers are to be filled by direct recruitment and 50 pet cent by promotion.

(2.) Some of the petitioners were appointed in 1962 and the others 1964. At that time, section 96 of tire Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act") divided the power of the Corporation to mate appointments intti two categories :

(3.) The advertisements issued by the Corporation in 1962 and 1964 and the appointments of the petitioners made in pursuance of the selection which took place from the candidates who applied in response to the advertisements made it quite clear that the appointments were temporary and made only for a period of one year. This was apparently because a permanent appointment could not be made without consulting the Union Public Service Commission while appointments for a period not exceeding on,e year could be so made in accordance with clause (a) of the proviso to section 96. The appointees were, however, informed that they would be eligible for consideration by the Union Public Service Commission for absorption permanently if approved by the Commission. Normally, consultation with the Commission for making permanent appointments to these posts or for appointing the petitioners permanently to these posts should have been made by the Corporation before the expiry of the period of one year for which the petition crs were temporarily appointed. The Corporation, however, took time in seeking such consultation with the Commission. Meanwhile every year at the time of the expiry of the temporary appointments of the petitioners the E Corporation used to appoint them afresh for another year apparently in accordance with clause (a) of the proviso to section 96 of the Act.