O.A. No. 1636/2010, M.A. No. 1347/2010. Case: 1. Jitender Munjal S/o Late O. P. Munjal, 2. Ashtha Sharma D/o Laxmi Shanker Sharma Vs 1. Government of National Capital, Territory of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, I.P. Extension, New Delhi, 2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Town Hall, Chandani Chowk, Delhi, Through Its Commissioner, 3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Karkardooma, Through Deputy Secretary. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 1636/2010, M.A. No. 1347/2010 |
| Counsel | Neeraj Malhotra |
| Judges | Meera Chhibber (Judicial Member) & Shailendra Pandey (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | May 25, 2010 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
Meera Chhibber (Judicial Member)
-
Two applicants have filed this O.A. seeking the following relief:-
"(i) Quash/modify the merit list dated 3.4.2009 issued by the respondent No.2.
(ii) direct the respondents to redraw the merit list dated 3.4.2009 by giving experience benefit as directed by the Hon'ble High Court.
(iii) To pass any such other or further order (s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper".
-
It is stated by the applicants that they were appointed as Physiotherapist on contractual basis for a period of 6 months or till such time the posts are filled up on a regular basis whichever is earlier. In the year 2003 applicant No.1 was initially posted in R.B.T.B. Hospital and applicant No.2 in Hindu Rao Hospital. The contractual periods of applicant No.2 were extended from time to time without any break and she is working till date as Physiotherapist while applicant No.1 had worked for one year as he had got only one extension for six months. He did not apply for further extension of his Services as he was pursuing his higher studies. In the year 2005, respondent No.1 renewed the contract of applicant No.1 for the job of Physiotherapist but since there was no vacancy in the R.B.T.B. Hospital, he was transferred to Hindu Rao Hopsital.
-
It is stated by the applicants that respondent No.2 issued advertisement No.1/2008 on 13.5.2008 for 5 post of Physiotherapists in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 against the post code No. 0004/2008. The age limit for the said post was stated to be 19-27 years. The above said advertisement was challenged by the applicants by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 4528/2008 wherein an interim order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 13.6.2008 directing the respondents to consider their applications for the post of Physiotherapist and since it has been found to be desirable in the earlier advertisement No.09/2007, to give benefit of 2 years of experience, therefore, the same be also extended to the petitioners while making the selection in terms of advertisement No.1/2008 (page 96 at 98). The said order was modified on 10.7.2008 whereby respondents were permitted to complete the selection process but they should not make any appointment pursuant to the said selection process without permission of the court. In spite of above, respondents issued the result of the Physiotherapist on 30.4.2009 (page 100). Applicant No.1 was shown at Sl.No.31 while applicant No.2 was shown at Sl.No...
To continue reading
Request your trial