Back
High Court Of Delhi
UDHAM DADHWANI - Appellant
Versus
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - Respondent
Civil Writ 556 of 1971
Decided On : 09/29/1977
DIRECT RECRUITMENT - TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT - CONSULTATION WITH UPSC - AMENDMENT OF SECTION 96 - DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957 - APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT ENGINEERS - VALIDITY - REGULARIZATION - SENIORITY - DISCRIMINATION - DRAFT REGULATIONS - APPROVAL - CONSTITUTIONALITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, diploma holders, were appointed as Assistant Engineers in the Delhi Municipal Corporation on a temporary basis for one year, with the possibility of permanent absorption subject to approval by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). However, due to delays in seeking consultation with the UPSC, their appointments were renewed annually. Subsequently, draft regulations prescribing qualifications for Assistant Engineers were framed but not approved. The UPSC refused to consider the petitioners for permanent appointment without an open advertisement. The petitioners challenged the validity of their appointments, the differential treatment between direct recruits and promotees, and the requirement of open competition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners' appointments were valid under the proviso to section 96 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which allowed temporary appointments for up to one year without UPSC consultation. However, the continued annual renewals of their appointments without consultation with the UPSC were anomalous. The court noted that section 96 was amended in 1974, eliminating the need for UPSC consultation for appointments to posts with a minimum monthly salary below Rs. 700, which included the posts of Assistant Engineers. Therefore, the petitioners' appointments could now be made permanently by the Corporation without UPSC consultation.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners' appointments as Assistant Engineers were valid under the proviso to section 96 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957? 2. Whether the continued annual renewals of their appointments without consultation with the UPSC were valid? 3. Whether the differential treatment between direct recruits and promotees was discriminatory? 4. Whether the requirement of open competition for the petitioners' permanent appointment was justified? 5. Whether the draft regulations prescribing qualifications for Assistant Engineers were valid and enforceable without approval under section 480(2) of the Act? 6. Whether the draft regulations were contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the proviso to section 96 as allowing temporary appointments for up to one year without UPSC consultation, but held that the continued annual renewals of the petitioners' appointments without consultation were anomalous. 2. The court found that the amendment to section 96 in 1974 eliminated the need for UPSC consultation for appointments to posts with a minimum monthly salary below Rs. 700, which included the posts of Assistant Engineers. Therefore, the petitioners' appointments could now be made permanently by the Corporation without UPSC consultation. 3. The court declined to address the issue of differential treatment between direct recruits and promotees, as it was not relevant to the petitioners' case. 4. The court held that the requirement of open competition for the petitioners' permanent appointment was justified, as it was necessary to ensure fairness and transparency in the selection process. 5. The court held that the draft regulations prescribing qualifications for Assistant Engineers were not valid and enforceable without approval under section 480(2) of the Act. 6. The court declined to address the issue of whether the draft regulations were contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it was not necessary for the decision in the case.
Final Decision: The court directed the Corporation to consider the petitioners for regular appointments to permanent posts of Assistant Engineers, either by themselves or along with other candidates, as the Corporation deemed fit. The court left open all other issues between the petitioners and the Corporation, including the question of seniority and the benefit of service rendered during the petitioners' previous ad hoc appointments.
( 1 ) THE relevant facts of the writ petition and C the reasons which led its reference to a Full Bench may briefly be stated. When the writ petition was filed, the petitioners and respomdents 5 to 39 were Assistant Engineers serving the Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. While all the petitioners Were appointed by direct recruitment, the first five of them are holders of diplomas in engineering while the others are holders of degrees in engineering. Respondents 5 to 39 who were already in the service of the Corporation were appointed as Assistant Engineers by proolotiori as distinguished from the petifioners who were appointed by direct recruitment. "the petitioners are, therefore, direct recruits while these respoadents are promotees. 50 per cent of the total number of posts of Assistant Engineers are to be filled by direct recruitment and 50 pet cent by promotion.
( 2 ) SOME of the petitioners were appointed in 1962 and the others 1964. At that time, section 96 of tire Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act") divided the power of the Corporation to mate appointments intti two categories :
(1) No appointment to any post carrying a minimum monthly salary of three hundred an;d fifty rupees or more shall be made except after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission : Provided that no such consultation with the Commission was necessary in regard to the selection for appointment to a tempory post for i period not exceeding one year. (2) The Corporation could make appoinment to post carrying a monthly salary below three hundred and fifty rupees without the need of consulting the Union Public Service Commission. The posts of Assistant Engineers earried the minimum salary of three hundred and fifty rupees or more and appointments to these posts then had to be done after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission.
( 3 ) THE advertisements issued by the Corporation in 1962 and 1964 and the appointments of the petitioners made in pursuance of the selection which took place from the candidates who applied in response to the advertisements made it quite clear that the appointments were temporary and made only for a period of one year. This was apparently because a permanent appointment could not be made without consulting the Union Public Service Commission while appointments for a period not exceeding on,e year could be so made in accordance with clause (a) of the proviso to section 96. The appointees were, however, informed that they would be eligible for consideration by the Union Public Service Commission for absorption permanently if approved by the Commission. Normally, consultation with the Commission for making permanent appointments to these posts or for appointing the petitioners permanently to these posts should have been made by the Corporation before the expiry of the period of one year for which the petition crs were temporarily appointed. The Corporation, however, took time in seeking such consultation with the Commission. Meanwhile every year at the time of the expiry of the temporary appointments of the petitioners the E Corporation used to appoint them afresh for another year apparently in accordance with clause (a) of the proviso to section 96 of the Act.
( 4 ) DRAFT regulations prescribing the qualifications etc. of the candidates to be appointed as Assistant Engineers were framed by the Corporation under section 98 of the Act and were approved by the Commission on 1st May, 1967. Since then they are awaiting the approval of the Administrator under sub-section (2) of section 480 of the Act. Since they have not received such approval and have not yet been, published in the Gazette, they have not acquired statutory force and are no more than a draft of the proposed regulations.
( 5 ) ON May 27, 1968 the Corporation informed the Commission that the petitioners have been continuing from year to year on adho
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
