Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1856 (DEL)

Surag Tir Kaman Suraj v. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi

2012-05-15

SURESH KAIT

body2012
Judgment :- Suresh Kait, J. 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought mandamus to be issued directing respondent to consider and issue appointment to the petitioner on the vacant post of J Engineer (Horticulture) caused on account of termination of services of Shri Than Singh Ve who was illegally appointed, against the post of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) and also soug consequential benefits flowing from thereof. 2. The petitioner initially joined the office of the respondent as Technical Assistant (Horticulture 17th September, 1998 on contract basis on the monthly pay of `. 4,000/- and continued to wo the same post up to 16th March , 2000. On 17th March, 2000, the term of the petitioner was again extended for a further period of six months by the office of the respondents. However, be the expiry of the said period, the petitioner was promoted on ad-hoc basis with effect from June, 2000. Thus, the petitioner gained experience of 1 year 8 months and 27 days continuo on the post of Technical Assistant (Horticulture) in the office of the respondent. 3. The respondent office vide its order dated 4th July, 2000, accepted the joining of the petit in its office. On 11th August, 2000, another office order issued in respect of the appointment o petitioner as Junior Engineer (Horticulture) on ad-hoc basis, wherein clearly mentioned tha petitioner had exhausted all the channel of his appointment i.e, medical examination, verificati character and antecedents etc. As such, the petitioner had undergone every channel o appointment same as a regular employee, but the respondents have arbitrarily appointed petitioner on ad-hoc basis and extended the period up to 13th December, 2000. Thereafter, tim time, the period of the petitioner was extended and he continued with the services up to 14th 2002. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court for regularization of his serve and the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 30th May, 2002 directing that the application of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with the rules and regulations for appoint of the said post, if not already considered. 5. It is further directed that the intimation of the status of the petitioner would be sent to respondents within four weeks from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. 6. 5. It is further directed that the intimation of the status of the petitioner would be sent to respondents within four weeks from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. 6. On 23rd May, 2006, he applied for some documents in connection with his case under the R to Information Act, 2001. On 23rd June, 2006, the respondents ultimately provided the required information to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner noted after gone through the selection process that the Selection Committee changed the eligibility criteria on short listing the candidates and enhanced the educate qualification and experience of the candidate suits to their requirement. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was not competent to change eligibility criteria which was the minimum prescribed criteria fixed for the recruitment. There the selection of the post is arbitrary, mala fide and illegal. 9. In response to the instant petition, respondents no. 1 to 3 filed their response and submitted they had advertised the post for the Group B & C in the year 1998 and 2001 to meet the sho of staff. They were engaging employees on temporary/ad-hoc/contract/daily wages as well a the way of outsourcing. These officials/labourers/workers have been appointed without underg the recruitment process as contemplated in the Memorandum of Association and Rules and recruitment process followed by Delhi Subordinate Selection Services Board (DSSSB). 10. It is further stated the petitioner was appointed in the regular time scale as a stop arrangement without following the recruitment process as required by the department and in la 11. It was felt in the month of May 2000 that with the increased activities in the Institute workload of Electrical, Maintenance and Horticulture Section were increased consider necessitating the requirement of middle-rank officials at Junior Engineer level. Therefore, in t of Clause (xiv) of the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations, one post of J Engineer (Horticulture) was temporarily created by the Director for a period of two years. 12 The respondent has been informing the petitioner from time to time that the appointment purely temporary and on ad-hoc basis till the regular incumbent joins the post by selection threw Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, whichever is ear 13. It is further informed that whenever the selection is made by the DSSSB, the appointment stand automatically terminated. of NCT of Delhi, whichever is ear 13. It is further informed that whenever the selection is made by the DSSSB, the appointment stand automatically terminated. It can be terminated without any notice or without assigning reasons even before the expiry of the said period. 14. As per the advertisement, the eligibility criteria for Junior Engineer (Horticulture) was desc as under: “JUNIOR ENGINEER (Horticulture): Degree in Agriculture/Horticulture from a recognis University or equivalent with one year experience in the field of Horticulture/Floriculture/ F Management or Diploma in Agriculture/Horticulture from a recognized Board/University Equivalent with 03 years experience in Horticulture/Floriculture/Farm Management. The prescribed qualifications are the minimum and the mere possession of the same does entitle the candidates to be called for interview. Where the number of applications receive response to this advertisement is large and it will not be convenient or possible for the institution interview all the candidates, the Institute may restrict the number of candidates to a reason limit by any or more of the following methods (a)- on the basis of either qualifications experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or (b)- on the bas experience in the relevant filed or (c)- by counting experience before or after the acquisition essential qualifications or d by holding a screening test.” 15. Vide communication dated 23rd June, 2006, the Selection Committee found that large nu of candidates fulfill the prescribed minimum qualifications and experience and are eligible as their advertisement. It was agreed to shortlist the candidates by fixing the short-listing cri accordingly, following criteria has been fixed by the Committee as given below :- Ph. D or the candidates who have submitted their thesis in the relevant field. OR Post Graduate Degree in the relevant field with a minimum five years of experience. Based o above criteria the committee recommended that the following candidates who are eligible ma called for interview for NSIT. 16. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that Committee in fact did not change the criteria, rather short-listed the candidates because of the that the maximum number of the candidates were fulfilling the criteria fixed by the response Therefore, for this purpose, the respondent took the decision to get the best candidates out o same lot. The petitioner had no right to get the appointment on the said post. 17. The petitioner had no right to get the appointment on the said post. 17. I find no discrepancy in the order passed by the respondent. Therefore, no merit in the in writ petition. 18. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. 19. No order as to costs.