KRISHAN PAL SINGH TOMAR Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India case of both the petitioners is that they were appointed as Work Assistants on daily wages on August 28. 1980 and October 8, 1982 respectively and were later on appointed in that capacity on work charge basis in the regular pay scale of Rs. 260-430 with effect from January 6. I W and January 3, 1985 respectively. The post of Junior Engineer was previously known as Sectional Officer in the DDA respondent. Recruitment to the post as adopted by the respondent vide resolution No. 574 dated November 13, 1963 provided for 100% direct recruitment and educational qualification was Diploma in Civil. Etectrical/Mechanical Engineering with two years experience or Graduate in Civil/Electrical/Mechanical Engineering.

(2.) It is alleged that in the year 1984 respondent held selection for appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical). About 600 candidates appeared for selection. The Selection Committee drew up a panel of 160 candidates from general category and 14 candidates from reserved category Letters of appointment were issued to about 60 candidates out of the select panel Respondent chose not to make further appointments on the basis of the select panel and wanted to promote departmental candidates instead. That action of the respondent was challenged in C W .No.225/85. which was allowed by the judgment dated, April 19, 1985 holding that as the mode of recruitment prescribed in the Rules was by way of direct recruitment and a select panel had already been drawn, the respondent cannot ignore the panel. The appointments were ordered to be made strictly in accordance with the select panel and not otherwise at long as the panel exists. It is alleged that against in the year 1985 it was for that the persons already working as Work Assistant with the respondent were being made to suffer because of the existing Recruitment Rules and. therefore, a proposal for amendment of Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Engineer was approved by the respondent-DDA vide resolution No. 77 dated October 4, 1985. In the meanwhile, another candidate who was in the reserved category and had a grievance regarding non-implementation of the panel prepared in 1984,filed C.W.P. No, 2221/85 which was disposed of with the following directions: Mr Sapra, learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the decision in C.W.P No 225 of 1985 had given them a direction that incase vacancies are to be filled up. it should be done strictly in accordance with the select panel and not otherwise as long as the said panel exists As the petitioner's name is in the panel Mr Sapra says naturally the DDA will honour the direction given by the Court. Mr. Sapra. however, says that he only wants some clarification from the court since the DDA intends to make new Rules and to fill up the vacancies in accordance with the changed Rules which may be different from the directions given by the Division Bench As no Rules are at present framed our direction that one post should be kept for the petitioner is affirmed. However, when Rules are changed and the DDA wants to take the stand that it is open to it to fill up the vacancies otherwise than the directions given in the writ petition, it must be with the prior permission of teh court."

(3.) It is stated that pursuant t0 the liberty granted by this Court in terms of the aforesaid order an application was filed by the respondent for seeking direction that in view of the amendment of the Recruitment Rules the respondent need not recruit any person from the select panel prepared in 1984 and the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) can be made in accordance with the amended Rules. On the said application this Court allowed the respondent to make recruitment in accordance with the amended Rules by an order dated October 13,1988.