The court affirmed the respondents' legitimate expectation to be appointed as Safai Walas after successfully completing the recruitment process, despite objections regarding the release of vacancies.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) assails the judgement dated 20th October, 2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in RCA 8/2015 (U.O.I & Ors. v. Urmila Devi & Ors.), whereby the learned ADJ has affirmed the judgment/order dated 22nd December, 2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge ("the learned SCJ") in Suit 967/06/99 (Urmila Devi and Ors. v. U.O.I & Ors.).

2. The respondents were registered with the Employment Exchange, Delhi for appointment as "Safai Walas".

3. Consequent to release of 91 vacancies of Safai Walas by the Army Headquarters vide letter dated 4th May, 1995, an exercise for recruitment of the said 91 Safai Walas was undertaken by the office of Respondent 2. Even after the said recruitment exercise was undertaken, 20 sanctioned posts of Safai Walas remained unfilled. On 16th May, 1996, therefore, Respondent 2 addressed a communication to the Army Headquarters, which has been reproduced in extenso in para 11 of the impugned judgment dated 20th October, 2015 of the learned ADJ, and reads thus:

"Delhi Tele No. 3036082

Station Headquarters

Delhi Cantt-10

54/69/Civs.

16 May 96

UCA no.fl/15

Addl Dte Gen of Org/Org 4 (Civ)(b)

Adjutant General's Branch

Army Headquarters

DHQ PO New Delhi-110001

RECRUITMENT OF CONSY SAFAIWALAS

sd/-

(NB Thapa)

Major

DAA & QMG

for Stn Cdr"

4. Consequent to the above, the appellants wrote to the Employment Exchange, requiring them to recommend the names of persons to be recruited as Safai Walas against the aforesaid 20 posts. The Employment Exchange sent the names of the respondents, who were issued Call Letters on 12th February, 1996 by the appellants, requiring them to appear for interview on 17th February, 1996. Consequent to the said interview, in which the respondents the respondents were apparently successful, letters dated 4th April, 1997 were addressed by the appellants to the respondents, offering them the posts of Safai Walas. Thereafter, the respondents were subjected to medical examination and were found fit for appointment as Safai Walas, and necessary Certificates of Health under Section 49 of the Civil Service Regulations were issued to them.

5. Despite this, the respondents were not appointed as Safai Walas and, instead, the appellants wrote to the Employment Exchange, calling for fresh names.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed Suit 967/06/99, from which the present proceedings emanate. The respondents sought, in the suit, a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the appellants from appointing persons other than the respondents as Safai Walas and for a decree of mandatory injunction, directing the appellants to appoint the respondents as Safai Walas.

7. The respondents succeeded in their suit both before the learned SCJ as well as the learned ADJ. Aggrieved thereby, the Union of India and the Assistant Adjutant & Quarter Master General for Station Commander