Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 527 (DEL)

MAHESH PRASAD KALA v. A. I. I. M. S.

2004-07-26

MANMOHAN SARIN

body2004
MANMOHAN SARIN, J. ( 1 ) RULE With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. ( 2 ) PETITIONER, by this writ petition, seeks a writ of certiorari, quashing the Circular dated 28. 1. 2004 (Annexure P-10) and memorandum (Annexure P-13), as arbitrary, discriminatory and a colourful exercise of power. The Circular gives the educational qualification required for the post of laboratory Technician. Age requirement is given as 18 to 30 years. In case of SC/st candidates, relaxation up to 5 years is given. A provision with regard to those who are already working in the department is under:- "the Departmental/ad-hoc/daily wages/ Project Persons on roll must have to fulfil the above requisite qualification/experience and also must be registered with the Employment exchange and have worked more than 240 days in each year for two consecutive years. " ( 3 ) PETITIONER, who had sought consideration for employment as Laboratory Technician was intimated vide Memorandum (Annexure P-13), as under:- " With reference to his application dated 19th Feb. ,2004 on the subject cited above, Sh. Mahesh Prasad Kala is informed that his request for consideration of his candidature for the post of Laboratory technician as a departmental candidate has been considered by the competent authority but it is regretted that the same cannot be acceded to, as departmental candidates are considered only those who are working at present in the Institute either on regular basis or two years on Ad-hoc/project or daily wages for two consecutive years, with 240 days in each year. However, he is advised to get his name registered with the Employment Exchange and his candidature will be considered if his name is sponsored by the Employment exchange against requisition for jobs in the Institute. " ( 4 ) MR. R. K. SAINI, appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has worked as an assistant on ad-hoc basis in the project in the pediatrics department, AIIMS from 4,6. 1994 to 28. 2. 2002. It is further submitted that petitioner, since 20. 5. 2004, has been working with the Additional Professor and Head Clinical microbiology Division, AIIMS without any salary as a trainee. Petitioner also relies on a certificate (Annexure P-2), issued by the additional. Professor. ( 5 ) THE main thrust of Mr. 1994 to 28. 2. 2002. It is further submitted that petitioner, since 20. 5. 2004, has been working with the Additional Professor and Head Clinical microbiology Division, AIIMS without any salary as a trainee. Petitioner also relies on a certificate (Annexure P-2), issued by the additional. Professor. ( 5 ) THE main thrust of Mr. Saini s argument is that petitioner had been called for interview in the year 1999, but interview did not take place. As such petitioner, who had worked from 4. 6. 1994 to 28. 2. 2002 and is presently working in an honorary capacity, has been denied consideration as departmental candidate and made to suffer for no fault of his. ( 6 ) MR. MUKUL Gupta, appearing for the respondent/aiims submits that there were number of petitions in which the requirement of 2 years of continuous service to qualify as a departmental candidate was considered. The Division Bench decided the issue on 2. 2. 1999, in AIIMS Employees Union and ors. Vs. AIIMS and Ors. reported at 1999 II apex Decision (Delhi) 866. The Division Bench upheld the provision of a minimum two years of continuous service with a rider that daily wager should also be on the rolls during the cut off period. The above policy was not found to be arbitrary. The present circular has a similar provision. In these circumstances, the challenge to the circular must fail and is repelled. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, considering the fact that the petitioner claims to have worked in a project from 1994 to 2002 and is also registered with employment Exchange and could not be considered in the year 1999, when the interview got cancelled, it would meet the ends of justice to direct that the respondents should consider the petitioner for engagement in case of any new project that is undertaken where his services can be utilized. Further, petitioner would also be eligible for consideration for being engaged as a daily wager in priority so that he gets a fair opportunity of. meeting the requirement and qualifying as per the circular. Writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.