The main legal point established in the judgment is that the challenge to appointments and orders regarding the abolished post of DCPD under the new Act and Rules was found to be unsustainable by the court.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to two orders dated January 02, 2019 and November 26, 2018 passed by the Tribunal in RA 261/2018 and in OA 1656/2015, respectively. The Tribunal vide the above orders had dismissed the RA 261/2018 and O.A. 1656/2015 filed by the petitioner herein.

2. The challenge of the petitioner in the OA was in respect of appointment made by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, to the post of Deputy Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (`DCPD', for short). The Government of NCT of Delhi had on February 04, 2009 invited applications to fill up the post of DCPD. The qualification for appointment to the afore-said post is that a candidate must have educational background in Social Work, Sociology or Social Anthropology with 7 years experience in Rehabilitation Work.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he had submitted his application for appointment to the post of DCPD and his case had been sponsored by an NGO in proof of his experience. However, subsequently the selection committee had selected one Mrs. Sandhya Roy Chowdhury as DCPD and the said appointment was challenged by the petitioner in OA 1743/2009. This OA was allowed on December 10, 2010 in favour of the petitioner and the appointment of Mrs. Sandhya Roy Chowdhury was set aside and a direction was also issued to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, to fill up the post of DCPD within three months.

4. Pursuant thereto, a fresh notification dated April 19, 2011 was issued by the respondent No1. The petitioner also challenged the same by filing an OA 2203/2011. It was his case, in the OA that the post of DCPD should have been filled by considering the case of the persons who had earlier applied in response to the earlier notification dated February 04, 2009. The said plea of the petitioner was not accepted and thus the OA was consequently dismissed by the Tribunal.

5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in OA 2203/2011, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) 2169/2012. The said writ petition was disposed of on April 25, 2012 whereby the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, were directed to issue a fresh notification to fill up the post of DCPD. A direction was also given that the selection to the said post shall have to be made in accordance with the rules that were existing as on February 10, 2012.

6. Pursuant thereto, a notification dated June 26, 2012 was issued. In total, five applications were received including that of the petitioner. On September 21, 2012, the Screening Committee was constituted and held its deliberations. The Screening Committee observed that as there are limited number of applicants and wide publicity has not been given through newspapers, so, fresh advertisement through newspapers need to be given for transparency and better publicity. Thereafter, wide publicity was given and 18 applications were received and placed before the Search-cum- Selection Committee. The Search-cum-Selection Committee in its meeting held on January 16, 2014 recommended a panel of three candidates in order of merit. On the basis of recommendations of the aforesaid committee, the Lt. Governor of Delhi had approved the name of one Dr. B. Ramaswamy to the post of DCPD. However, on a complaint with regard to fake experience certificate received by the department, the appointment letter was not issued to Dr. B. Ramaswamy and this resulted in issuance of a fresh notification by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

7. It was further ordered by the Lt. Governor that the department may re-advertise the post of DCPD and the individuals who were earlier under consideration, were also allowed to apply again.

8. Even this Court vide order dated July 02, 2015 directed the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to recommence the process of appointment to the post of DCPD. Accordingly, fresh applications were invited on August 25, 2015 to which the petitioner also responded, however, he was not selected and one Madan