RAJ KUMAR Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, vide the instant OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 assails the OM dated 16.04.2010 rejecting his claim for regularization of his services on permanent basis. The applicant further impugns the OM dated 05.10.2012 relieving him from his duties of Part -Time Shorthand Instructor (English) consequent upon joining of one Ms. Rekha, a regularly appointed Craft Instructor, Steno (H) against the post.

(2.) THE applicant has prayed for direction to the respondents to consider his claim as Shorthand Instructor on regular basis in relaxation of the recruitment rules as per the directions of the Tribunal contained in order dated 23.12.2009 passed in TA No. 882/2009. The applicant has further prayed as an interim measure not to allow the newly regularly recruited Craft Instructor, Steno (H) to join till the disposal of this case, a prayer which was not allowed.

(3.) THE respondents rejected the representation of the applicant vide order dated 16.04.2010 (page 20 of the paper book) and relieved him w.e.f. 05.10.2012 consequent upon joining of one Ms. Rekha, Craft Instructor, Steno (H) against the post (page 29 of the paper book). The main ground of the applicant on which he has sought to challenge the impugned order is that admittedly there were no recruitment rules at the time of his initial appointment on 14.04.1992 and since then the record of the applicant has been outstanding. It is the case of the applicant that his experience of 12 years has adequately been treated to compensate for the lack of trade certificate by this Tribunal in its order dated 23.12.2009 passed in TA No. 882/2009, which was mandatory in nature and not discretionary. In the second place, the applicant has also alleged hostile discrimination against him on the ground that other persons who had also been appointed along with him in absence of recruitment rules have been regularized while the applicant is being singled out for termination. In the third place, the respondents have defaulted in their duties by referring the matter to Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as DSSSB) which was not in existence at the time of his original appointment. The act of the respondents in not apprising the DSSSB regarding the fact that the applicant was appointed on 14.04.1992 i.e. prior to enactment of the recruitment rules is violative of the procedure. The applicant further submits that there exists one vacancy of Shorthand Instructor (English), and he has, therefore, prayed that even if he had been appointed as Casual Labour, he would have been regularized by this date under the terms & conditions of the Scheme known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 which came into force w.e.f. 01.09.1993 and reiterated in OM dated 06.06.2002.