CHANDRA BALLABH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two writ petitioners aggrieved by the selection of respondent No.2 to the post of Commissioner (Planning) by the respondent No.1 has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr.G D Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that in terms of column 10 of the Regulation, the method of recruitment for the post of Commissioner (Planning) is 'by transfer on deputation / promotion failing which by direct recruitment'. Recruitment Regulation is at page-52 of the paper book. In column 11 in the case of transfer on deputation the following requirement is given |- By transfer on deputation of officers holding (i) Analogous post; (ii) Post in the scale of Rs.1800-2000 with two years service in the grade; (iii) Post in the scale of Rs.1500-2000 with five years experience in the grade. Under the Central or State Govt. of Development/Planning Authorities and possessing qualifications prescribed for the post of Commissioner (Planning); the Director (Planning)/ Chief Architect in the Delhi Development Authority with two years service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on regular basis will also be eligible to be considered and if the departmental officers mentioned above is selected for appointment to the post it will be treated as having been filled by promotion (Period of Deputation ordinarily not exceeding three years).

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid Clauses of the recruitment regulations, Mr.Gupta has contended that the process of selection to the post of Commissioner (Planning) by direct recruitment without first exhausting the channel of promotion/deputation was illegal, mala fide and unreasonable. In support of his arguments, Mr.Gupta has relied upon S S Sodhi Vs.State of Punjab & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 694 and Gujarat Housing Board Engineers Association & Anr. Vs.State of Gujarat & Ors. 1994 (1) SLR 55. The second bone of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the Establishment Order dated 21.1.1997 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory as the senior selection board was wrongly constituted by the respondent No.1-Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') and it was in contravention of the recruitment regulations. It was also contended before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the same post the constitution of DPC is provided in column 12 of the said Regulation, which includes |- Vice-Chairman, DDA - Chairman Finance Member, DDA - Member One Expert on planning to be nominated by Ministry of Works Housing - Co-opted Member Secretary, DDA - Member Director (Personnel), DDA - Member