JAI PRAKESH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition petitioners seek to restrain the respondent from making appointments to the post of Junior Engineer of 17 persons who have been reverted back as Work Assistants after being provisionally promoted on the basis of the select panel of the year 1984:

(2.) It is alleged that both the petitioners are diploma holders and have been working as Work Assistants (Electrical) with the respondent on work-charge basis since November 1, 1980 and September 23, 1981 respectively. They are eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect Mech). the Post of Junior Engineer was previously known as Sectional Officer and Recruitment Rules as adopted by the respondent vide its resolution No.574 dated November 13, 1963 provided for 100% direct recruitment Educational qualification required for the aforesaid post was diploma in Civil/Elect./Mech. Engg. With two years experience or graduate in Civil/elect./Mecth Engg. It is alleged that in the year 1984 respondent held selection for appointments to the said the post About 600 candidates appeared for selection and 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. Thereafter respondent chose not to make appointments on the basis of the select panel and wanted to promote departmental candidates instead. This action of the respondent was challenged in C.W.225/85 which was allowed by this Court by the judgment dated April 19, 1985 holding that as the mode of recruitment prescribed in the Rules was direct recruitment and a panel had already been drawn the respondent cannot ignore the panel and the appointments to the said post are to be made strictly in accordance with the select panel as long as it subsists. It is stated that again in the year 1985 it was felt that the departmental candidates working as Work Assistants were being made to suffer in view of the existing Recruitment Rules and therefore, a proposal for amendment of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Engineer was approved by the respondent vide its resolution No. 77 dated October 4, 1995. In the meanwhile, another candidate who was in the reserved category and had a grievance regarding non- implementation of the panel prepared in the year 1984, filed C.W.P. No. 2221/85 which was allowed and a post was ordered to be kept reserved for him. It was further held that as when Recruitment Rules are Changed and the respondent wants to take the stand that it is open to it to fill up the vacancies otherwise than the direction given in the writ petition it must seek the prior permission of the Court. It is stated that pursuant to the liberty which had been granted in the aforesaid petition an application was filed on behalf of the respondent and by the order dated October 13, 1988, the application was disposed of permitting the respondent to make appointments to the aforesaid post according to the amended Recruitment Rules It is further alleged that out of the select panel of 1984 respondent promoted 17 persons as Junior Engineer (Elect./Mech.) and on contempt petition being filed by the aggrieved persons the respondent had to ultimately Withdraw their promotions and to revert them back to their original posts. It is pleaded that on their reversion 17 affected persons filed a writ petition but the same was dismissed at the show-cause stage itself by this Court. Again same 17 persons are sought to be appointed as Junior Engineers ignoring the seniority of the petitioners. Actions of the respondent in promoting these 17 persons to the post of Junior Engineer. (Elect./ Mech) is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and malafide.

(3.) In response to the show-case notice respondent has filed reply on the affidavit of Janak Juneja, Secretary. It is, inter alia, alleged that 18 Work Assistants, whose name figured in the select panel of 1984, were appointed as Junior Engineer (Elect. & Mech.) However, on two writ petitions being filed challenging their appointments the respondent decided to revert them with effect from September 25, 1985 and they were actually reverted back to the post of Work Assistants in November 1985. Out of the said 18 work Assistants one has died. After the amendment of the Recruitment Rules the department recommended the names of aforesaid 17 persons against the available vacancies of Junior Engineer (Elect./Mech.) and that recommendation was approved by Member Engineer on January 2, 1989 and Vice Chairman on January 6, 1989. However, before any further action could be taken in the matter stay order was served on the respondent and for that reason appointment letters to said 17 persons could not be issued . It is asserted that the decision of the Competent Authority in appointing 17 persons to the aforesaid postis perfectly legal.