UNA SHANKER SAHOO Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before I deal with the points raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners it is necessary to notice the facts in each of the cases.

(2.) In CW 1037 of 1989 the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 13.2.1976. He was declared quasi-permanent vide E.O. 134 dated 10.1.1980 with effect from 12.2.1979. While in service the petitioner acquired Engineering Degree. At the time of appointment he was a Diploma holder. In 1983 there were 25 posts of Assistant Engineers vacant. On 22.8.1983 a Departmental Promotion Committee was held and the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Elect.) after considering the records of the petitioner. The petitioner along with other 24 Assistant Engineers (Elect.) promoted was given current duty charge because all the promotees did not have the minimum eligible experience of 3 years or 8 years, as the case may be. On 14.11.1986 the petitioner made .a representation to the first respondent that he had become eligible for regularisation on 13.2.1984 and, therefore, he should be regularised and his salary be paid on regularisation. It is stated in the writ petition that there was a civil writ petition pending in this Court filed by some Junior Engineers praying for the preparation of a seniority list without any reference to the educational qualification either diploma or degree. That litigation came to an end in October 1988. Thereafter on 6.10.1988 the petitioner made. a representation that he might be regularised as the Departmental Promotion Commitlee in its meeting held on 22.8.1983 had found him to be fit. The petitioner along with other Assistant Engineers (Elect.) on current duty charge had undergone a training course on quality control in electrical works.

(3.) On 29.3.1989 and 31.3.1989 the Departmental Promotion Committee had held its meetings for considering the case of officers for promotion. The select list was published on 7.4.1989.-The petitioner's name was not found therein. On 10.4.1989 the petitioner made a representation to the Commissioner (P). The petitioner met the Commissioner (P) when the latter expressed its inability to help on the ground that the Departmental Promotion Committee which met in March 1989 had found the petitioner, not fit for promotion. The main point taken by the petitioner is that the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting dated 22.8.1983 after considering the performance of the petitioner had found him fit and there cannot be a decision contrary to the decision taken by the D.P.C.' in 1989. It is stated in paragraph 19 E as under: