Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Praveen & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 8143 of 2023 & CM APPL. 42745 of 2023
Decided On : 21-08-2023
Advertisement - Appointment of Assistant Sanitary Inspector (ASI) - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 14(1)(b)(iii)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, qualified Sanitary Inspectors, sought appointment as Assistant Sanitary Inspectors (ASI) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). They filed RTI applications to inquire about vacancies and requested the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to issue an advertisement for the vacant ASI posts. The DSSSB did not respond, leading the petitioners to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' remedy lay with the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as per Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The court dismissed the petition on the ground of not exhausting the alternative remedy and directed the petitioners to approach the CAT for determination of their grievances.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226, considering the statutory alternative remedy available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the CAT had jurisdiction over the dispute concerning service matters, and the petitioners should have approached the CAT as the court of 'first instance' before seeking relief under Article 226. The court emphasized the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedy and the discretionary nature of the High Court's enforcement of writs.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed on the ground of not exhausting the alternative remedy, and the petitioners were directed to approach the CAT for resolution of their grievances. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent No.1/DSSSB to issue an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector (ASI) in MCD in terms of the requisitions sent by the MCD to the DSSSB;
(ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent No.2/MCD to fill all the unfilled vacancies of Assistant Sanitary Inspector (ASI) through regular/permanent employees;
(iii) allow the present writ petition with costs in favor of the petitioners; and
(iv) pass any such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in favor of the petitioner."
2. The facts that lead to filing of the instant petition are being recapitulated below:
a. The petitioners are having the qualification of Sanitary Inspectors and are seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector (hereinafter "ASI") in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter "MCD").
b. The petitioners filed various RTI Applications to seek details regarding the vacancies in the MCD and if any advertisement has been issued by the DSSB. In response to the said applications, it was stated that at present there are 330 posts lying vacant in the MCD and no advertisement has been issued since the year 2012.
c. In pursuance to the said replies, the petitioners made numerous representations to the respondents in July 2022, but no decision has been taken by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioners sent a legal notice dated 17th May 2023, to the MCD. In their representations, the petitioners had requested the DSSB to issue an advertisement for inviting applications for appointment to the above said posts. However, no response was received from the DSSB.
d. Aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the DSSB in not issuing advertisement for filling the vacant posts of ASI, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners possess the requisite qualification to perform the duties and responsibilities of ASI effectively and the conduct of the DSSSB in not issuing the advertisement to fill the vacant posts is unjustified and against the settled principles of law.
4. It is submitted that at present, out of the 970 sanctioned posts of ASI, there are 330 posts lying vacant with the MCD. Despite the huge number of vacant posts and also an acute shortage of personnel, the DSSB has been adamant in not issuing an advertisement to fill the said vacant posts.
5. It is submitted that in pursuance to the said vacancies, the MCD sent repeated requests to the DSSSB on 24th January 2020, 29th July 2020, 1st December 2020, 23rd July 2021 and 3rd August 2022, but no advertisement for such appointment has been issued by the DSSB since the year 2012.
6. It is also submitted that the MCD is in dire need of personnel, required to act upon the duties of ASI which is necessary for better discharge of functions of the MCD, still there has been no action on the part of the respondent.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioners are at the verge of exceeding the required age limit of 27 years for appointment to the post of ASI, as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and the delay on the part of DSSB in not issuing any advertisement for inviting the applications for appointment to the post of ASI is causing grave prejudice to the petitioners.
8. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, the petitioners seek that this Court may direct the DSSB to issue an advertisement, thereby, inviting the applications for appointment to the post of ASI in MCD and hence, allow the instant petition.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on b
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the requirement to exhaust the statutory alternative remedy before seeking relief under Article 226, emphasizing the discretionary nature of th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the CAT cannot be overlooked, and the petitioners' remedy lies in getting their alleged dispute settled by the CAT.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties cannot directly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of service matters covered by the Act of 1985....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in adjudicating matters related to service and recruitment, as per the prov....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain disputes arising from changes in Service Rules and the power of judicial review over legislative action.
Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court that lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter; such stipulations are void and against public policy.
Administrative tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over service matters, and bypassing them for adjudication in High Court is generally not permitted unless in exceptional circumstances.
The main legal point established is that the High Court should not entertain a petition if an alternate efficacious remedy is available before the Tribunal, as per the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal)....
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
