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.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 42763/2023 (Delay in filing short affidavit)

1. The instant application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the respondent-DSSSB/applicant seeking condonation of delay in filing short affidavit.

2. For the sufficient cause being shown in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 7 days, in filing the short affidavit on behalf of the respondent, is condoned. The short affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-applicant be take on record.

3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 8146/2023

4. 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 Public Health Inspector (APHI) 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 Public Health Inspector (APHI) 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"

5. The facts that lead to filing of the instant petition are being recapitulated below:

1. The petitioners are having the qualification of Sanitary Inspectors and are seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Public Health Inspector (hereinafter "APHI") in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter "MCD").

2. 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 81 posts lying vacant in the MCD and no advertisement has been issued since the year 2014.

3. 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.

4. Aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the DSSB in not issuing advertisement for filling the vacant posts of APHI, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners possess the requisite qualification to perform the duties and responsibilities of APHI 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.

7. It is submitted that at present, out of the 128 sanctioned posts of APHI, there are 81 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.

8. It is submitted that in pursuance to the said vacancies, the MCD sent repeated requests to the DSSSB on 24th June 2021, 31st March 2022, and 12th August 2022, but no advertisement for such appointment has been issued by the DSSB since the year 2014.

9. It is also submitted that the MCD is in dire need of personnel, required to act upon the duties of APHI which is necessary for better discharge of functions of the MCD, still there has been no action on the part of the respondent.

10. It is further submitted that the petitioners are at the verge of exceeding the required age limit of