IMPORTANT POINT
Experience gained after campus selection, i.e., after final examination was over and before publication of result of examination/or marks certificate, could be treated as professional experience .

JUDGMENT

M. Jagannadha Rao, J. -Delay condoned in all the Special Leave petitions. Leave granted. Transposition application in SLP (C) Nos. 289-292/99 allowed.

2. In all these appeals, the correctness of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. 95/94 and Writ petitions batch dated 12.5.1998 is involved. The appellants (except in SLP (C)....... CC.3960/99) are the various candidates seeking appointment as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as MCD) and whose claims for appointment have been accepted by the High Court. We shall describe them as "appellants" in this judgment. The Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)....... (CC. 3960/99) is filed by the contesting respondents in the above appeals. These are those whose selections have been upheld by the High Court though there was some "irregularity" but whose seniority is in question now. We shall call them `respondents for convenience.

3. A brief resume of the events which have led to the filing of these appeals is necessary. On 30.6.1989, the MCD invited applications for filling up 60 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Engineering Department of the MCD. The applications were to be received before 31.7.89. The essential qualifications for appointment were (a) degree in Civil Engineering and (b) two years professional experience. Age was not to exceed 30 years (relaxable for government servants and MCD employees). 412 applications were received from the departmental candidates as well others.

4. The Selection Board of the MCD had to follow the following norms for awarding marks :

1. For Qualifications : 10 marks

Break up

Upto 50% marks 5 marks

51% to 60% marks 6 marks

61% to 70% marks 7 marks

71% to 80% marks 8 marks

81% to 90% marks 9 marks

91% to 100% marks 10 marks

2. For Experience

Break up 5 marks

(i) Upto two years       experience Nil

(ii) 3 to 12 years and                above experience at                     the rate of ½ marks                   i.e. for 10 years 5 marks

(iii) Viva-voce 15 marks

5. The MCD prepared a list of Sixty candidates and all of them had scored 16 marks or more. 44 were placed in the waiting list. Some of the candidates who were not selected, filed writ petitions and the said petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by common judgment dated 10.8.94. (Only one WP (by S. Nagi) was allowed). Letters Patent Appeals were preferred. Some fresh Writ petitions were also filed by candidates not selected and these petitions were tagged along with the appeals.

6. On 23.11.95, the High Court passed an order referring to Justice G.C. Jain, Retired Judge of the Delhi High Court the question whether the allocation of marks by the MCD to the various candidates was in accordance with the norms fixed. Justice G.C. Jain gave hearing and finally prepared a list of first 60 candidates and also a list of next 40 candidates. He also prepared a list of those who became eligible after the cut-off-date (i.e. 17.7.89) and before 31.7.89, the last date for receipt of application. He also prepared a list of candidates who enrolled after 1.7.89 and 31.7.89.

7. The result was that the Court had before it two select lists, one prepared by the MCD and another by Justice Jain.

8. There were candidates whose names were found in the MCD select list as also in the list prepared by Justice G.C. Jain. Justice Jain had held that, in his view, some candidates who were ineligible by the cut off date or the last date for receiving