SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Del) 903

High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
Uttam Singh & Others
Versus
MCD & Others
W.P.(C).Nos. 2512 of 2012, 2513 of 2012, 987 of 2013, 1570 of 2013
Decided on : 26-07-2013.

Important Points

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to interpret the Recruitment Rule in line with the past practice of the Corporation and to make necessary amendments to bring clarity to the Rule.

Subject

Employment Law - Recruitment Rules and Promotions

Headnote

Recruitment Rule - Municipal Corporation of Delhi - Column 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 - The judgment discusses the mismatch between the author's intent and the drafting of the Recruitment Rule, leading to confusion in the application of age limits and qualifications for direct recruits and promotees. The court highlights the erroneous reflection in the Recruitment Rule and the past practice of the Corporation in making appointments by promotion without a skill test but subject to the promoted candidate clearing the skill test within two years.

Fact of the Case:

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi notified Recruitment Rules for the post of Lower Division Clerk, leading to a dispute regarding the application of age limits and qualifications for direct recruits and promotees. The Corporation had a past practice of making appointments by promotion without a skill test but subject to the promoted candidate clearing the skill test within two years.

Finding of the Court:

The court found a mismatch between the author's intent and the drafting of the Recruitment Rule, leading to confusion in the application of age limits and qualifications for direct recruits and promotees. The court dismissed the writ petitions but recommended bringing clarity to the Recruitment Rule by making necessary amendments.

Issues: The main issue was the interpretation and application of the Recruitment Rule regarding the age limits and qualifications for direct recruits and promotees, as well as the past practice of the Corporation in making appointments by promotion without a skill test.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to interpret the Recruitment Rule in line with the past practice of the Corporation and recommended necessary amendments to bring clarity to the Rule.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions but recommended bringing clarity to the Recruitment Rule by making necessary amendments.

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:C. Harishankar, Advocate with S. Sunil, N. Jagdish, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mukesh Sharma, proxy counsel for Ms. Shobha Gupta, Advocate for MCD, Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate with Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocate for GNCTD, Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Saahila Lamba, Ms. Tinu Bajwa, Amandeep Joshi, Alpha Phiris Dayal, Jindal, proxy counsels for Sanjeev, Advocate for DPCC, Biji Rajesh, proxy counsel for Gaurang Kanth, for MCD, Varun Gupta, with Ms. Sonia Arora, Ms. Rachna Golchhha, Advocates.

Judgment :-

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. On January 07, 1983 the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi notified the Recruitment Rules to the post of Lower Division Clerk. As per column No.5 the post was declared to be a selection post and as per serial column No.10, 10% posts had to be filled by promotion on the basis of a competitive examination conducted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from Class IV employees and the remaining 90% posts had to be filled up by direct recruitment through the ‘Clerks Grade Examination’ to be conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. Serial No.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 the Recruitment Rule read as under:-

For clerks grade examination for class IV

6. Age limit for staff. Not exceeding 45 year on the 1st Jan of the direct recruits year preceding year of the examination. (Relaxable for clerk scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidates).

For clerks grade examination. Not less than 18 year on the 1st January of the year in which the examination is held (Relaxable for exservicemen, scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidates and other specified categories). For clerks grade examination and clerks grade examination for class IV staff: Essential: (i) Matriculation from a recognized University/Board or equivalent.

7. Education & (ii) Ability to type at a other qualifications speed of not less than required for direct 30 w.p.m. in English or recruits not less than 25 w.p.m. in Hindi.

Note: Candidates who attain at the written examination such minimum standard as may be fixed by the staff selection commission in their discretion will be subject to a type writing test as per the Standards indicated above and only those who qualify there at will be eligible to be recommended for appointment.

8. Whether age & Educations Age: As in column 6 for qualifications class IV Staff prescribed for direct Qualification: As in recruits will apply in column No.7. the case of promotees.

9. Period of Two year. probation if any (i) not more than 10% by promotion on the basis of the competitive examination held by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for class IV staff.

10. Method of (ii) Remaining vacancies recruitment whether by direct recruitment by direct or by through the Clerks promotion or by Grade Examination deputation/transfer conducted by the Staff and percentage of Selection Commission the vacancies to be Provided that on more filled by various than 10% of the method. vacancies filled by direct recruitment in any year shall be reserved for Ex-servicemen. Note: - not more than

5% of the total vacancies arising in year may be filled otherwise than as provide for above by appointment of a son or daughter or wife or husband or brother or sister of an employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi who dies daring the period of his service subject to the condition that the person to be so appointed possess as the qualifications prescribe for direct recruitment or acquires them within 2 years of his appointment.

2. And suffice would it be for us to note at the outset that the draftsman of the Recruitment Rule, while giving ink to the thought of the author thereof has done a fairly clumsy job. Notwithstanding it being settled legal position that appointment on promotion through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination is not appointment by direct recruitment, in column No.6 the draftsman wrote against ‘Age limit for direct recruits?: ‘for Clerks Grade Examination for Class IV staff not exceeding 45 years….. for Clerks Grade Examination not less than 18 years?. It evidences that the draftsman misunderstood the mind of the author and as against providing two serial numbers with distinct head of applicability i.e. age limit for direct recruits and age limit for promotees, treating both to be direct recruitment, indicated two different age limits. This misunderstanding continued when column 7 was inked. Listing the subject matter in column 7 ‘Education and other qualifications required for direct recruits’ the draftsman wrote:



















1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top