IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment - wait listed candidates.

Judgment :

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. The Petitioner, Dr. Prem Lata, who appeared in-person, challenged the appointment of Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, Mr. C.K. Chaturvedi and Mr. S.N.A. Zaidi, the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 herein, as Presidents of different District Forums, by way of Writ Petition (C) No.178 of 2011 in the Delhi High Court. In addition she prayed that while quashing the appointments of the said three Respondents, a Mandamus should issue to the State Government to appoint her as President of one of the District Fora in Delhi, with effect from 1st December, 2010, with all consequential benefits.

2. The Petitioner is a member of the District Forum and, pursuant to advertisements published on 18th March, 2010, inviting applications for the post of President of five District Forums, had applied for appointment as President of one of the said five District Forums in Delhi. After interviewing 63 candidates, the Selection Committee prepared a panel in which the Petitioner was shown as the first candidate in the waiting list in respect of Shalimar Bagh District Forum with Mr. M.C. Mehra as the selected candidate. Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, Mr. C.K. Chaturvedi and Mr. S.N.A. Zaidi, the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 herein, were also shown as selected for the post of President for three of the remaining Districts. The panel was to be valid for a period of one year and, in case the candidates selected failed to join within 45 days of the offer of appointment, such offer would lapse and the second and third person, as the case may be, in order of preference, would be offered the appointment.

3. As indicated hereinabove, the Petitioner was the first alternative in case Mr. M.C. Mehra, who was selected, did not join as President of the Shalimar Bagh District Forum. It may be noted that Mr. Mehra did join, within 45 days of issuance of the appointment letter in his favour. Consequently, the Petitioner’s chance of being appointed as President for the said District Forum came to an end.

4. However, it was the Petitioner’s case that the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 did not join within 45 days of issuance of the letters of appointment in their favour, and that they were subsequently allowed to join, upon the conditions being relaxed, but that such relaxation was unlawful. It was also the Petitioner’s case that the joining of the said Respondents as Presidents of their respective District Forums was invalid and was liable to be set aside and the Petitioner was entitled to be appointed as President of one of the District Forums in the resultant vacancies.

5. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that at the relevant time when the appointment letters were issued, the Respondent No.4 was functioning as the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. The Respondent No.5 was functioning as the District Judge-II, Delhi, and the Respondent No.6 was functioning as the Additional District Judge, Mathura. They had written to their respective High Courts to be relieved from their respective posts so that they could join their new posts. A request was also made on behalf of the High Court to the Lt. Governor, Delhi, for extension of time to enable the said Respondents to join their respective posts. In the circumstances indicated, the Government of NCT of Delhi extended the time and, thereafter, the said Respondents joined as Presidents of the respective Forums on 25th February, 2011 and 28th February, 2011. The learned Single Judge held that the power to extend the time was within the domain of the Respondent authorities and they had every right to extend the time to meet the exigencies which had cropped up in this case. The Petitioner, thereupon, preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.518 of 2011, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 16th August, 2011, upon reiteration of the decision of the learned Single Judge. It is against the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court that the present Special Leave Petition is being filed.