K. S. GUPTA ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India case of both the petitioners is that they were appointed as Work Assistants on daily wages on August 28. 1980 and October 8, 1982 respectively and were later on appointed in that capacity on work charge basis in the regular pay scale of Rs. 260-430 with effect from January 6. I W and January 3, 1985 respectively. The post of Junior Engineer was previously known as Sectional Officer in the DDA respondent. Recruitment to the post as adopted by the respondent vide resolution No. 574 dated November 13, 1963 provided for 100% direct recruitment and educational qualification was Diploma in Civil. Etectrical/mechanical Engineering with two years experience or Graduate in Civil/electrical/mechanical Engineering. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that in the year 1984 respondent held selection for appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical ). About 600 candidates appeared for selection. The Selection Committee drew up a panel of 160 candidates from general category and 14 candidates from reserved category Letters of appointment were issued to about 60 candidates out of the select panel Respondent chose not to make further appointments on the basis of the select panel and wanted to promote departmental candidates instead. That action of the respondent was challenged in C W. No. 225/85. which was allowed by the judgment dated, April 19, 1985 holding that as the mode of recruitment prescribed in the Rules was by way of direct recruitment and a select panel had already been drawn, the respondent cannot ignore the panel. The appointments were ordered to be made strictly in accordance with the select panel and not otherwise at long as the panel exists. It is alleged that against in the year 1985 it was for that the persons already working as Work Assistant with the respondent were being made to suffer because of the existing Recruitment Rules and. therefore, a proposal for amendment of Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Engineer was approved by the respondent-DDA vide resolution No. 77 dated October 4, 1985. therefore, a proposal for amendment of Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Engineer was approved by the respondent-DDA vide resolution No. 77 dated October 4, 1985. In the meanwhile, another candidate who was in the reserved category and had a grievance regarding non-implementation of the panel prepared in 1984,filed C. W. P. No, 2221/85 which was disposed of with the following directions: Mr Sapra, learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the decision in C. W. P No 225 of 1985 had given them a direction that incase vacancies are to be filled up. it should be done strictly in accordance with the select panel and not otherwise as long as the said panel exists As the petitioner s name is in the panel Mr Sapra says naturally the DDA will honour the direction given by the Court. Mr. Sapra. however, says that he only wants some clarification from the court since the DDA intends to make new Rules and to fill up the vacancies in accordance with the changed Rules which may be different from the directions given by the Division Bench As no Rules are at present framed our direction that one post should be kept for the petitioner is affirmed. However, when Rules are changed and the DDA wants to take the stand that it is open to it to fill up the vacancies otherwise than the directions given in the writ petition, it must be with the prior permission of teh court. " ( 3 ) IT is stated that pursuant t0 the liberty granted by this Court in terms of the aforesaid order an application was filed by the respondent for seeking direction that in view of the amendment of the Recruitment Rules the respondent need not recruit any person from the select panel prepared in 1984 and the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil/electrical/mechanical) can be made in accordance with the amended Rules. On the said application this Court allowed the respondent to make recruitment in accordance with the amended Rules by an order dated October 13,1988. ( 4 ) IT is further alleged that contrary to the directions passed in C. W. No 2221/85 respondent-DDA promoted 17 Work Assistants. who were on the select panel of 1984. as Junior Engineers. On the said application this Court allowed the respondent to make recruitment in accordance with the amended Rules by an order dated October 13,1988. ( 4 ) IT is further alleged that contrary to the directions passed in C. W. No 2221/85 respondent-DDA promoted 17 Work Assistants. who were on the select panel of 1984. as Junior Engineers. Accordingly, a contempt petition was filed by the aggrieved persons and the respondents had to ultimately withdraw the order promoting those 17 persons and to revert them back. On reversion 17 affected persons filed a writ petition which was dismissed at the show cause stage itself Case of the petitioners further is that Jai Prakash and Others filed yet another C. W. No 38/89 against the appointments of aforesaid 17 persons as Junior Engineers and by the order dated March 28, 1989 respondent was restrained from making any appointment except in accordance with the amended Recruitment Rules. ( 5 ) IT is alleged that respondent has again proceeded to make appointment to the post of Junior Engineer contrary to the amended Recruitment Rules on selection basis through interview 228 candidates in the general category and one candidate in the reserved category including the petitioners were issued cal letters to fill up 23 vacancies Interviews were held on October 20, 1989. It is alleged that on inquiry the petitioners were told that interviews were being held to make appointments on seniority basis. Petitioners later on came to know that the respondent-DDA intended to make the appointments on selection basis instead of seniority in the next below rank of Work Assistants. Not only the Work Assistants but certain Wiremen and Khalasis were also considered on the interview and selected It is further alleged that in C. M. 4838/89 in C. W. P. 38/89. Jai Prakash and Others Vs DDA. Not only the Work Assistants but certain Wiremen and Khalasis were also considered on the interview and selected It is further alleged that in C. M. 4838/89 in C. W. P. 38/89. Jai Prakash and Others Vs DDA. this court by order dated November 8, 1989 issued noticed to respondent for November 20, 1989 and in the meantime status quo was ordered to be maintained, Selection of 23 candidates to the posts of Junior Engineers by the respondent is alleged to be arbitrary mala fide, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India In this background the petitioner prayed for issued of an appropriate writ direction or order that interviews held on October 20, 1989 and the selections made pursuant thereto for appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil/electrical/mechanical)be quashed and the appointments to the post be ordered to be made as per the amended Recruitment Rules on the basis of seniority from amongst the working Work Assistants only. ( 6 ) IN response to show-cause notice respondent DDA filed reply on the affidavit of Ranbir Singh. Secretary DDA It is not denied that prior to 1985 there was no provision in the Recruitment Rules for reserving any quota for departmental candidates for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical/ Mechanical); and that in the year 1984 a panel was prepared wherein departmental candidates also figured. It is further not denied that out of that panel appointment letters were issued to 51 candidates ofgeneral category whereafter the respondent decided to make appointments of the departmental candidates. whose names figured in the aforesaid panel Appointment letters were accordingly issued to 18 departmental candidates and they joined their duties as junior Engineers (Electrical Mechanical) Aggrieved by this action, candidales, who had been selected and whose position was higher in the panel. filed C. W. No 225/85 challenging the said decision of the respondent. This writ was allowed by judgment dated April 19, 1985. It was held that the appointments of 18 departmental candidates was bad in law. Consequently 18 departmental candidates were reverted back to their original post. Yet another C. W. No. 2221/85. filed by a Scheduled Caste candidate was pending, when the amendment to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical/mechanical) was under consideration. It was held that the appointments of 18 departmental candidates was bad in law. Consequently 18 departmental candidates were reverted back to their original post. Yet another C. W. No. 2221/85. filed by a Scheduled Caste candidate was pending, when the amendment to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical/mechanical) was under consideration. ( 7 ) IT is stated that after the amendment of the Rules an application was filed by the respondent. which was disposed of by an order dated October 13, 1988 permitting the respondent to make appointments, as per the amended Recruitment Rules. It is further stated that respondent thereafter decided to appoint 17 persons to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical/mechanical): not on the basis of select panel of 1984 but on account of the fact that they had experience in the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) and were having better merit, compared to other departmental candidates. However, this action of the respondent was challenged by the affected persons in C. W. NO. 38/89 and on an application being C. M. No, 57/89 this Court by the order dated March 28, 1989 held that the respondent was not entitled to appoint them. The appointments were directed to be made only after considering all the eligible departmental candidates, after assessing their merits. It is alleged that the amended Recruitment Rules do not provide if the appointments are to be made on the basis of the selection of seniority in the next below rank of Work Assistants. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid order dated March 28. 1989. respondent decided to consider all eligible department candidates for being appointed to the aforementioned post. Applications were invited from all eligible department candidates. In all 68 applications were received. Petitioners also made applications; After receipt of applications interview letters were issued to all eligible departmental candidates. In all 66 candidates, including the petitioners, appeared for interview before the Selection Board on October 20, 1989. Selection Board, after giving consideration to me educational qualification. experience, general assessment and the interview. recommended 23 candidates for being appointed to the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical ). Selection Board further recommended that no letters of offer be issued to the candidates mentioned at serial Nos. 21, 3, 6, 20 and 23 of the merit list unless they produce the original certificates. experience, general assessment and the interview. recommended 23 candidates for being appointed to the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical ). Selection Board further recommended that no letters of offer be issued to the candidates mentioned at serial Nos. 21, 3, 6, 20 and 23 of the merit list unless they produce the original certificates. It is stated that as per the recommendations of the selection appointment letters were issued to 18 candidates out of which l3 candidates had already joined their duties as Junior Engineer (Electrical and. Mechnical ). It is pleaded that after having appeared in interview before the Selection Board and remaining unsuccessful, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the selection of 23 candidates. It is emphatically denied that as per the amended Recruitment Rules appointments are to be made only on the basis of seniority. It is denied that the petitioners were informed that the interviews were being held to make appointments on seniority basis, as alleged. ( 9 ) ON February 20, 1990. CM 1056/90 under order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was tiled by Principal Singh and 22 others for being impleaded as parties to the petition. This application was allowed by an order dated March 27, 1990. In their affidavit in reply newly added respondents Principal Singh and Others opposed the petition on the grounds similar to those taken by the respondent DDA. These are the persons, who were selected as Junior Engineers pertaining to the interview held on October 20,1989 ( 10 ) TO appreciate the submissions advanced by Shri G. D. Gupta appearing for the petitioners which we will be referring hereinafter, reference to the proposal as contained in item No. 77 dated October 4, 1985 (annexure P3) has become necessary. Same reads as under: No. 17 Date 4. 10. 85 Subject: Amendment in Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and (Elect. and Mechanical) [f. I (50) 85-PB-1]. Recruitment Rules for the post of Section Officer (Civil) and (Elect. /mech. ). later on designated as Junior Engineers in the pay scale of Rs. 425-790 were approved by the Authority vide its Resolution No. 574 dated 13. 11. 1963 as per copy market as appendix E . Recently, a panel was drawn to fill up vacancies in the cadre of Junior. Engineers (Elect /mech.) after inviting applications from the general candidates. ). later on designated as Junior Engineers in the pay scale of Rs. 425-790 were approved by the Authority vide its Resolution No. 574 dated 13. 11. 1963 as per copy market as appendix E . Recently, a panel was drawn to fill up vacancies in the cadre of Junior. Engineers (Elect /mech.) after inviting applications from the general candidates. As the vacancies were being filled up from the panel so prepared, the Work Assistants who were engaged by the DDA represented their case of the DOA for their appointment as Junior engineer (Elec. /mech.) in the background of their service in the similar capacity in the Organisation. The Management considered the representation of these Work Assistants in detail. It was observed that the cadre of Work Assistants in CPWD was a dying one and the management was also not in a position to turn out these Work Assistants in the interest of harmonious industrial relationship. In additional, it was also considered that if the appointments were made from outside, there would be a strain on the financial resources as the Work Assistants and the Junior Engineer (Elect. /mech.) both will be drawing their salaries from the DDA. Therefore, with a view to effecting economy in the Organisation, and also have a smooth industrial relationship, the management decided to appoint these Work Assistants who possess the same qualifications on the basis of their seniority instead of those available on the panel drawn earlier. Against the above decision of the DDA management, some persons who were placed on the panel went to the Hon ble High Court of Delhi, by way of the writ of mandamus. The case was decided in fevour of the writ petitioners. Similarly some outside candidates who were invited for interview as Junior Engineers (Civil) have also gone to the High Court of Delhi challenging the appointments of Work Assistants as Junior Engineer (Civil ). The Hon ble High Court of Delhi has yet to deliver its judgment in this case However, it is apprehended that decision given in the case of Junior Engineer (Elect/mech ) will be quoted by thepetitioners before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi and it is likely that same principles arc adhered to in the present case as well The relevant portion of judgment relating to the case of Junior. Engineers (Elect. Engineers (Elect. /mech ) is reproduced as under "we issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent-Authority to make appointments to the post of Junior Engineers (E and M) strictly in accordance with the select panel and not otherwise, as along as the said panel subsists. It is made clear that there is no direction to the respondent to fill up the vacancies and the direction is only that if vacancies are to be filled then the appointments are to be made all amongst the candidates whose names figure in the said panel and their appointments are to be mere according to the order of merit. Side by side the Hon ble High Court has also stated in the judgment that:- It is open to the Authority to change its mind and decide that recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer will only be made from amongst departmental candidates but this decision has to be taken by the Authority by passing an appropriate resolution, for it is only by passing another resolution that the earlier, resolution dated 13. 11. 1963 can be substituted. "with the above decision of the Hon ble High Court. DDA cannot absorb or adjust its own departmental candidates and thus, no vanue would be available to these Work Assistants if the Recruitment Rules are not modified. To overcome this problem, it has been decided in principle to amend the Recruitment Rules for both viz Junior Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Elect. /mech ) with the prior approval of the Authority. The decision will be directed not to recruit any Work Assistant now onwards saving the DDA from embarrassment and additional liability. The amendment is therefore, proposed in appendix F page which may be approved by the Authority. RESOLUTION "resolved that the proposal as contained in the agenda item. namely. recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer from amongst the departmental candidates Work Assistants with required educational/experience qualifications be approved. ( 11 ) APPENDIX f to said item No. 77 (annexure P4) which too is material runs as under; RECRUITMENT RULES FOR THE POST OF SECTIONAL OFFICER NOW RE DESIGNATED AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL/elect/mech) ( 12 ) SUBMISSION advanced by Shri Gupta was two fold. ( 11 ) APPENDIX f to said item No. 77 (annexure P4) which too is material runs as under; RECRUITMENT RULES FOR THE POST OF SECTIONAL OFFICER NOW RE DESIGNATED AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL/elect/mech) ( 12 ) SUBMISSION advanced by Shri Gupta was two fold. It was firstly urged by him that appointments to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect and Mechanical) from amongst departmental candidates can only be made on the basis of seniority in the next below rank of Work Assistants and therefore, selection of 23 persons made pursuant to the interviews held on October 20. 1989 by the respondent-DDA is contrary to the amended Recruitment Rules. In support of the contention our attention was drawn to the last lines of para I (underlined by us) of aforesaid annexure P3. Decision to appoint Work Assistants. who possessed the requisite qualification only on the basis of their seniority as contained in said annexure P3 was taken by the respondent DDA at the time the panel of 160 candidates from general category and 14 candidates from reserved category was drawn up in the year 1984 and letters of appointment issued to about 60 candidates out of that select panel. Thereafter much developments took place. Against the aforesaid decision of the DDA admittedly C. W. P No. 225/85 came to be filed, which was allowed by the judgment dated April 19, 1985 holding that DDA could not ignore the select panel and the appointments, if any, to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect. and. Mech.) be made from amongst the candidates, whose name figure on the select panel only. Later on the proposal as in appendix f (annexure P4) to amend the Recruitment Rules to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil/elect. /mech.) came to be considered by the respondent DDA by way of agenda item No. 22 on February 4, 1985, The amended Recruitment Rules as the stand do not provide that the appointments to the aforesaid post of the departmental candidates are to be made only on the basis of the seniority in the next below rank. Thus. neither the last lines of para I of annexure P3. Thus. neither the last lines of para I of annexure P3. nor the amended Recruitment Rules are of any assistance to the petitioners as regards their case for appointments to the aforementioned post only on the basis of seniority in the next below rank Respondent DDA was fully competent to make the appointments on selection basis ( 13 ) IT was then contended on behalf of the petitioners that under the amended Recruitment Rules. neither the Wiremen nor Khalasis are eligible for being appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect. /mech.) but out of 23 persons selected pursuant to the interview held on October 20, 1989. 5 persons are either Wiremen or Khalasis. Our attention was also invited towards the resolution approved by the respondent DDA vide agenda item No 77 dated October 4. 1985 (annexure P3) On a careful reading of annexure P3 it is evident that what was approved by the respondent DDA was the proposal as contained in appendix "f" (annexure P4) As per annexure P4) irrespective of the rank. which a departmental candidate was holding, he was made eligible for selection to the aforementioned post. if he possessed a diploma in Civil Elect/ Mech. Engg. with two years experience or was a graduate in Civil Elect/ Mech. Engg. There is thus no room for doubt that even candidates though termed as wiremen and Khalasis but possessing requisite qualification were eligible for being appointed to the post of Junior Engineer ( 14 ) FROM the above discussion it must follow that none of the two submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners carry any weight. Moreover, after having taken a chance by appearing in the interview on October 20, 1989 and remaining unsuccessful, the petitioners cannot now be heard to say that selection, of 23 persons pursuant to the said interview was in violation to the amended Recruitment Rules. Petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed. ( 15 ) NEEDLESS to say that as a result of the operation of the order passed on November 20. 1989 in C. M. 4972/89 by this Court, out of 23 selected persons 10 were not in a position to join the post of Junior Engineer till date, for no doubt on their part. They cannot be made to suffer because of the pendency of the position. ( 16 ) WHILE dismissing the petition with Rs. 5. 000. 00 as costs. They cannot be made to suffer because of the pendency of the position. ( 16 ) WHILE dismissing the petition with Rs. 5. 000. 00 as costs. Respondent-DDA is directed to appoint the remaining 10 successful persons to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect. /mech.) forthwith.