RAMESH CHANDER Vs. DELHI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a dispute between two groups of Executive Engineers appointed by the Delhi Electric Supply Committee (Respondent No. 5) in the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (Respondent No. 1) which is vested in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Respondent No. 2) and is a part thereof. The petitioners, constituting one group, have been appointed in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission as required by the principal part of section 96 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act of 1957) which reads as below :-

(2.) Petitioners I to 3 and 5 to 8 were appointed on various dates from 10-5-1962 to 8-4-1964. Petitioner No. 4 is however a civil engineer, and may not belong to the common cadre of Executive Engineers constituted by the Office Order dated 3-8-1960 at Annexure E to the Writ petition at page 63 of the paper book. The opposing group consists of Respondents 6 to 14 who were at first appointed for a period of less than one year without consultation with the Union Public Service Commission as permitted by the first part of proviso (d) to section 96 of the Act of 1957 which is as below :-

(3.) Their appointments were made ad hoc on various dates from 27-12-1960 to 7-12-1962. Respondents 6, 7 and 8 came to be regularly appointed to the same posts of Executive Engineers in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission in 1963 (Respondent No. 8) and in 1965 (Respondents 6 and 7) respectively. The inter se seniority among these Executive Engineers was never determined mainly because no decision could be taken as to whether the ad hoc period of service of the respondents before their appointments were regularised in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission should be taken into account in determining the length of their service or not. Apparently, under the impression that the ad hoc periods of their service had to be taken into account, Sarvashri I. C. Sangar, Ramesh Chandra and P. S. Sawhney (Respondents 6, 8 and 7) were promoted in October, November and December 1968 respectively to the selection posts of Controller of Stores, Superintending Engineer (G) and Chief Commercial Officer in that order for periods of less than one year. The validity of these appointments of Respondents 6 to 8 is challenged by the petitioners mainly on two grounds. Firstly, from before the Act of 1957 came into force, the appointment and other service conditions of Executive Engineers serving in the then Delhi State Electricity Board were governed by the regulations made by the said Board under section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 in 1951 (hereinafter called the Regulations of 1951). The said Board was succeeded by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking under the Act of 1957. Section 516(2) (a) of the Act of 1957, however, provided inter alia that any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form, notice or bye-law made or issued" under the Act of 1948 shall, "in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act (Act of 1957), continue in force and be deemed to have been made, issued or granted under the provisions of Act of 1957, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule etc. made under the Act of 1957". Petitioners contend that the Regulations of 1951 are still in force inasmuch as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 1957. Paragraph I-B-I of Regulation 5 reproduced at pages 6 and 7 of Annexure D to the Writ Petition (at page 62 of the paper-book) these appointments could be made only by direct recruitment. The appointments of Respondents 6 to 8 made by promotion are, therefore, contrary to the said regulation and as such illegal.