SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Del) 502

High Court Of Delhi
LEELAMMA GIGI - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DELHI - Respondent
W.P.(C.) 1010 of 1994
Decided On : 07/15/2004

Advocates Appeared:
GITA LUTHRA, JHUM JHUM SARKAR, N.R.Sharma, R.K.SAINI

The court upheld the justification for including a test for judging proficiency in languages in the syllabus for the special test, considering the language requirements in District Courts.

Headnote:

Regularization - Stenographer - Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1954 - Section 4

Fact of the Case:

Ms. Leelamma Gigi, a Lower Division Clerk (LDC), seeks regularization as a Stenographer and equal pay for equal work. Respondents raise objections based on the Employment Exchange Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismisses the writ petition, stating that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature based on a written test in Hindi was justified, as the special test directed by the Supreme Court was not restricted to shorthand and typing only.

Issues: Regularization as a Stenographer, equal pay for equal work, objections based on the Employment Exchange Act, rejection of candidature based on a written test in Hindi.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the inclusion of a test for judging proficiency in languages in the syllabus for the special test was justified, considering the language requirements in District Courts.

Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.

Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 ) RULE. WITH the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

( 2 ) PETITIONER, Ms. Leelamma Gigi, was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 4. 12. 1985 in the District Courts. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus, directing respondent No. 1 to regularize her as a Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 from the date of her initial appointment. It is based on her claim that from the date of appointment, she has functioned as a Stenographer only. Directions are also sought to respondents to give salary, benefits, allowance etc. , from the date of initial appointment on the analogy of equal pay for equal work. Consequential seniority is also claimed.

( 3 ) MR. R. K. SAINI, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that from the date of her initial appointment and joining i. e. 10. 12. 1985, she was deputed as a Stenographer. She worked regularly as Stenographer. To support this, Mr. Saini, referred to numerous orders, namely, Annexure P-4 to Annexure P-15. By the aforesaid orders, the term of appointment of the petitioner as ad hoc Stenographer was extended from time to time. The last being up to 28. 2. 1994 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. Respondents having not regularized or confirmed her as a Stenographer.

( 4 ) PETITIONER filed the present writ petition on 18. 2. 1994. Respondents have filed the counter affidavit, raising objections to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that regularization would entail violation of Section 4 of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1954. During the course of submissions, considering the initial appointment as L. D. C. , was pursuant to the registration with the Employment Exchange, learned counsel for the respondents does not press this objection.

( 5 ) RESPONDENTS have averred in the writ petition that some of the ad hoc Stenographers had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi, bearing No. 878/86 titled Ghanshyam Dass and Ors. Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Delhi. Apart from this, they had also filed a petition in the Supreme Court bearing No. 413/90, titled Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Delhi. It is stated that certain directions were given by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, for holding special test to enable ad hoc Stenographers to sit in the said examination and claim regularization. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner failed in the special test, which was conducted in the year 1992. She declined to appear in the test held in the year 1993, 1995 and 1996. Learned counsel for the respondents states that it is only on 21. 10. 2002, when petitioner passed the test that she has been granted regularization and appointed as a regular Stenographer.

( 6 ) MR. SAINI next contended that petitioner had qualified in the shorthand and typing test but had failed to clear the Hindi test, held in the year 1992. Learned counsel submits that the Supreme Court had only directed a special test to be carried out which was to be of shorthand and typing and there was no occasion for the respondents to a hold test in Hindi and then reject the petitioner s candidature on the ground that she failed in Hindi test. He submits that special test, as directed by the Supreme Court, was intended to be a test in shorthand and typing and not a test for proficiency in Hindi or English and no written test other than a test of shorthand and typing was required.

( 7 ) MR. GEETA Luthra has placed on record a circular of 16. 11. 1992, which reads as under:- "a written Test in English for the post of Stenographers in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 is being held by this office on 29. 11. 1992 at 10. 30 A. M. The officials of this office, who knows Shorthand may submit their applications by 21. 11. 1992 for appearing in the Written Test. The syllabus of the Written Test is as under:- 1. Essay Writing. 2. Translation from Hindi to English



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top