The court upheld the Tribunal's directive for compassionate appointment based on misrepresented qualifications and dismissed the petition due to significant delay.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

C.M. No. 8658/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2871/2021 & C.M. No.8657/2021 (for stay)

3. This petition impugns the order dated 3rd May, 2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (CAT), in O.A. No.1420/2017 preferred by the respondent.

4. The O.A. aforesaid was filed, pleading that (i) the husband of the respondent Dharampal died on 28th February, 2010; (ii) that the daughter of the respondent, as per her eligibility, applied for compassionate appointment in the petitioner Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and in the application dated 23rd March, 2010 filled up her qualification as 'Arts Graduate' and attached her marksheet and provisional certificate of graduation in Arts issued by Delhi University; (iii) the said application for compassionate appointment remained pending and the officials of the petitioner DJB removed the graduation certificate from the application and made changes in the application in column no. 19(8) 'Educational qualification of the applicant' by cutting 'Arts Graduate' and replacing it with 'XII pass'; (iv) the application for compassionate appointment was not considered in the first two lists issued, despite eligibility; (v) on representations of the respondent, the daughter of the respondent was appointed on 1st May, 2012 as Assistant Meter Reader, though as per her qualification, was eligible for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), which post the husband of the respondent was holding; (vi) the respondent represented to the petitioner DJB for change in the post of employment of her daughter Ms. Preeti, from Assistant Meter Reader to LDC, as per her educational qualification; (vii) the respondent learnt that one Ravi Verma employed with the petitioner DJB in the concerned department had cut the words 'Arts graduate' in the application form of the daughter of the respondent and put `XII pass' instead in his hand and also removed the marksheet and provisional certificate of the Arts graduation; (viii) the respondent filed complaint against the said Ravi Verma and the inquiry initiated in this regard indeed found Ravi Verma, to have so altered the application of the daughter of the respondent; and, (ix) however inspite of the said finding, instead of giving appointment to the daughter of the respondent as LDC, she was allowed to continue as Assistant Meter Reader.

5. CAT, vide the impugned order, has disposed of the O.A. aforesaid observing that Ms. Preeti, daughter of the respondent should have been considered and offered the appointment as LDC, after taking into consideration her educational qualification of B.A. Arts and has set aside the order dated 1st May, 2012 (incorrectly mentioned as 2nd May, 2015) and directed the petitioner DJB to consider the candidature of Ms. Preeti, daughter of the respondent to the post of LDC if she is otherwise suitable for the said post.

6. This petition has been preferred after close to two years of the impugned order and has come up today for the first time before the Court. The counsel for the petitioner DJB on enquiry, whether the order of CAT has been complied with and/or the candidature of Ms. Preeti considered as directed, replies in the negative. On enquiry about the long delay after which the petition has been filed, the counsel for the petitioner DJB vaguely states that on account of Covid pandemic the petition could not be filed. It is further stated that the petition was filed in October, 2020 but was not got listed awaiting physical hearing. However, on enquiry whether the counsel has not been doing virtual hearing and why the petition has been got listed today for virtual hearing, the counsel though states that he has been doing virtual hearing but there is no explanation otherwise for not having the petition listed. Moreover, the petitioner DJB had more than ten months prior to ons