SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.
Azhar Ali Khan and others,
Versus
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, Respondents.
Civil Misc, Petns. Nos. 3068-69 of 1984 in Writ Petn. No. 1194 of 1979
Decided on 18-4-1984.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Advocates with him, for Petitioners; Mr. Shanker Ghosh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. P. Maheswari, Advocate with him for the Corporation; Mr. Y. S. Chitale, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ravindra Bana, Advocate with him for Opposite Side; Mr. A. K. Sanghi, Advocate, for Intervener.
Posts of Assistant Engineers - Direct recruitment - Selection - Pay scale - Seniority list - Corporation proceeding to appoint Assistant Engineers (Civil) by direct recruitment as per Recruitment Regulations or in fixing 50:50 quota and working it out or in selection of petitioners in Writ Petition No. as Assistant Engineers pursuant to decision to appoint 8 Assistant Engineers (Civil) by direct recruitment in interviews held for that purpose and respondents 1 and 2 should issue orders of appointment to those posts to 8 of petitioners in Writ Petition No. who are in select list within 6 weeks - Prayer No. 2 in writ petition was to quash office order dated entrusting Junior Engineers with current duty charge of posts of Assistant Engineers and office order dated promoting 2 Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers on current duty charge on their own pay scale - As regards that prayer what Court have stated in Court order in writ petition - Current duty charge and ad hoc appointments for such a long period exceeding to period of one year mentioned in said memorandum dated Government of India is irregular though that memorandum could not be said to be automatically binding on respondent 1 - Whether it could override said Recruitment Regulations already in force was not canvassed by learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 – Held, Respondents 1 and 2 cannot be allowed to circumvent this Courts, order dated made in writ petition regarding appointment of Assistant Engineers from select panel of Graduate Junior Engineers approved by pleading Resolution dated as a supervening circumstance or by contending that select list approved on got exhausted or had expired - It is not open to respondent 1 to contend that select list was valid only for 2 years and had expired - Resolution is said to have been submitted to Union Public Service Commission for its approval - Validity of that Resolution and the question whether it could override said Recruitment Regulations already in force was not canvassed by learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 or learned counsel appearing for promotees covered by those orders dated - Resolution which is of its own making cannot be pleaded by respondent 1 as any inability or bar to comply with Courts direction given in writ petition - Respondents 1 and 2 shall make appointments of Assistant Engineers for remaining posts of Assistant Engineers in direct recruitment quota as per our order dated and out of select list approved on within one month from today failing which petitioners - C.M.P. No. 3069 of 1984 is allowed accordingly to that extent. C.M.P. No. 3068 of 1984 is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
VARADARAJAN, J. :— C. M. P. No. 3068 of 1984 is by the first respondent in Writ Petition No. 1194 of 1979 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) for a direction that having regard to changed circumstance the Corporation need not fill in the gaps in the seniority list of 1978-79 relating to Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment. C.M.P. No. 3069 of 1984 is by the petitioners in the same writ petition for taking proceedings against respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition for contempt of this Courts order dated 13-7-1983 made in the writ petition and for directing those two respondents to forthwith implement that order and fill up the available 32 posts of Assistant Engineers from amongst the petitioners "who were qualified and eligible according to the recuitment rules" and to restrain those respondents from filling up the posts in the direct recruitment quota from amongst diploma holders on current duty charge or on ad hoc basis or in any other manner.
2. By our order dated 13-7-1983 (reported in AIR 1983 SC 881) we allowed prayers Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the writ petition as indicated in our judgment with costs and dismissed the writ petition in other respects. Prayer No. 1 in the writ petition was to direct respondent No. 1 in the writ petition to fill up 8 posts of Assistant Engineeers from amongst those in the select panel approved on 2-5-1979. As regards that prayer what has been ordered by us is this (para 43A) :
"There is nothing wrong in respondent 1, the Corporation. proceeding to appoint Assistant Engineers (Civil) by direct recruitment as per the Recruitment Regulations or in fixing the 50:50 quota and working it out or in the selection of petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1194 of 1979 as Assistant Engineers pursuant to the decision to appoint 8 Assistant Engineers (Civil) by direct recruitment in the interviews held for that purpose on 6th and 7th March, 1979 and the respondents 1 and 2 should issue orders of appointment to those posts to 8 of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1194 of 1979 who are in the select list within 6 weeks from this date (13-7-1983), if not already issued as undertaken, by Mr. U. R. Lalit (Senior Counsel of respondents 1 and 2) on 29-7-1981 within five months from that date."
3. Prayer No. 2 in the writ petition was to quash the office order dated 11-4-1978 entrusting Junior Engineers with current duty charge of the posts of Assistant Engineers and the office order dated 21-6-1979 promoting 2 Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers on current duty charge on their own pay scale. As regards that prayer what we have stated in our order in the writ petition is this (at pp. 897-98) :
"Continuing current duty charge and ad hoc appointments for such a long period exceeding to the period of one year mentioned in the said memorandum dated 30-10-1976 of the Government of India is irregular though that memorandum could not be said to be automatically binding on respondent 1. What is totally wrong Is that appointment of Junior Engineers on current duty charge as Assistant Engineers has been made by the impugned order dated 21-6-1979 even after the approval of the select list prepared for the appointment of 8 Assistant Engineers without issuing orders for the appointment of even to 8 out of those persons who were in the select list. In the circumstances we hold that the appointment of those Diploma holder-Junior Engineers by the order dated 10-4-1978 and of two such Junior Engineers by the order dated 21-6-1979 as Junior Engineers on current duty charge for periods which are proved to be too long is irregular and we quash the same."
4. Prayer No. 3 in the writ petition was to direct respondent 1 to fill up the remaining posts of Assistant Engineers in the direct recruitment quota from amongst the empanelled petitioners who were graduate Junior Engineers. As regards that prayer what we have ordered in the writ petition is this (para 44) :
"Respondent 1 is admittedly bound by the Recruitment Regulations m
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.