TA No. 1267/2009. Case: 1. Devender Singh, Assistant Engineer, 2. Firoz, Assistant Engineer Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through Commissioner. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberTA No. 1267/2009
CounselS. Janani, Deepak Goel, Aakansha Sharma, Sudershani Ray, Suparna Srivastava
JudgesShanker Raju (Judicial Member) & R. C. Panda (Accountant Member)
IssueService Law
Judgement DateJanuary 19, 2010
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal


Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda (Accountant Member), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)

  1. In the year 1985, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) held selection for filling up the posts of Assistant Engineer (AE) under the direct recruitment quota. A select list was prepared, wherein both the Applicants were at Sl. No.8 & 9 in the said select list. Due to the delayed action of the Respondents, the respective aggrieved parties approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and obtained a clarification that during the pendency of the Writ Petition of Baljeet Singh, the Respondent MCD was directed to reserve one seat for Baljeet Singh, Junior Engineer and the Respondents would be at liberty to fill other seats in accordance with law. The Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Engineer provided that the said post is to be filled up, 50% by direct recruitment and balance 50% by promotion. It is stated that the MCD used to fill up the direct recruitment quota by appointing diploma holder Junior Engineers to the said post of AE on ad hoc or current duty charge basis. The Recruitment Regulations provide that Assistant Engineer (Civil) filled up by promotion/appointment would be from amongst the Junior Engineers both graduate and diploma holders. The Regulation No.10 & 11 under the Recruitment Rules dated 27.06.1970 provide for the 50:50 ratio between direct recruit and the promotee. In the year 1978, 8 posts were advertised and a selection list was prepared of the degree holders. However, the said panel was not given effect to and the diploma holders continue to occupy the post of current duty charge or on ad hoc basis. The aggrieved Junior Engineers degree holders moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.1194/1979 and Writ Petition No.229/1979 was filed by the diploma holder Junior Engineers. Both Writ Petitions were taken together and disposed of by common judgment dated 30.07.1983 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was directed to the Respondent No.1 MCD to issue orders of appointment to 8 degree holder Junior Engineers, out of those in the select list approved on 2.5.1979 within one month from the date of issue of the judgment and complete the appointment of Assistant Engineers for the remaining posts on regular basis in accordance with the quota fixed. In spite of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the MCD did not give effect to. Thereafter the petitioners in the said Writ Petition filed a Contempt Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was decided on 18.04.1984 with a direction to the Respondents to fill up the posts in the direct recruitment as per order dated 13.07.1983. Since the Respondent-MCD did not comply with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court one more Contempt Petition was moved against the MCD and there was an order of stay upholding the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petition of the Baljeet Singh. After hearing the Contempt Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided that out of 22 vacancies which had arisen as a result of reversion directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 10 posts are meant for the general candidates and remaining 12 are reserved for the SC posts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also took note that 9 persons having been empanelled wherein the Applicants are at Sl. No.8 & 9, the first 5 of these 9 persons should be appointed forthwith instead of 6, keeping one seat reserves for Baljeet Singh in the event of his success as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. If Baljeet Singh fails in his writ petition that post should go to the 6th person from the panel of those 9 persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed that the remaining 3 or 4 persons as the case may be, who are already in the panel should be offered the post of direct recruits in the category of Assistant Engineers, as and when the vacancies arose and they would not be required to appear in any more interview or selection. Thus, the selection list that may be prepared as a result of the interviews which were taken place on November 1985 would have no bearing insofar as the appointment of the said 9 empanelled persons was concerned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed this order dated 29.11.1985 (Annexure A) consequent to the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Applicants made a representation to the Respondent-MCD on 6.02.1986 and followed up by further representations dated 22.04.1987, 4.4.1988 (Annexure-C Colly).

  2. It is the case of the Applicants that in December 1985 itself their were vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineers and, as such, even after the appointment of 7 persons who are above the two Applicants in the select list and after even reserving one seat for Baljeet Singh, there would be vacant posts to be filled by the Respondent-MCD to accommodate these two Applicants. Further, it is stated that 61 new posts were created vide Resolution dated 8.8.1985 (Annexure D) which included 42 posts of Assistant Engineers. It is also averred in the TA that in view of the recommendations contained in said resolution and letter dated 31.07.1988 of the Commissioner of MCD the direct recruitment was banned to the post of Assistant...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT