Point of Law: Appointment of private respondents in terms of Annexure A-7 by following a procedure both alien and foreign to Recruitment and Promotion rules is per se bad in law and their appointment in terms of office order is void ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of the present petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

(i) That the impugned Annexures A-6 and A7, circular dated 20th February, 2019 and office order dated 9th July, 2019, respectively, issued by respondent No.1, may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(ii) That respondent No.1-Corporation may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of applicant No.1 for promotion to the post of Manager (House Keeping) against the promotional quota meant for the category of House Keeping and the candidature of applicant No.2 may kindly be ordered to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (House Keeping).

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:-

The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 was initially appointed as Linen Keeper with respondent-Corporation on 18th September, 1986. She thereafter was appointed as a Trainee (House Keeping), vide office order dated 20th July, 1987. She was thereafter appointed as Assistant House Keeper on regular basis w.e.f. 4th June, 1991 and promoted against the post of House Keeper, vide office order dated 4th June, 2011 vide Annexure A-1. Petitioner No.1 was promoted as Assistant Manager (House Keeping) on officiating basis, vide office order dated 26th October, 2015 (Annexure A-2) and was discharging her duty, as such at the time of filing of the petition. Petitioner No.2 was initially appointed as a Trainee (House keeping) in the year 1987 and thereafter appointed as Room Boy in the year 1995. He was thereafter appointed as Floor Assistant in the year, 1997 and thereafter as a Senior Floor Assistant. He was appointed as Assistant House Keeper in October, 2002 and on the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee, he was promoted against the post of House Keeper on officiating basis, vide Annexure A-3 dated 07.11.2015. This petitioner was also discharging his duty as such at the time when the petition was filed. As per the petitioners, respondents No. 3 to 5 were junior to them. Respondent No.3 was from the House Keeping cadre, whereas respondents No. 4 and 5 were belonging to the Front Office Cadre.

3. Respondent-Corporation vide Agenda Item No. 142, in terms of minutes of meeting held on 14th August, 2015,the Service Committee rejected the proposal to fill up managerial posts meant for direct quota through Limited Direct Recruitment i.e. LDR on the ground that the same will affect the efficiency adversely. It was observed that this may lead to frustration amongst the existing incumbents in case quite junior or junior incumbents as well as officials working at lowest rank were elevated through LDR to the level of Manager/Assistant Manager. Further, these posts were recommended to be filled-up through open advertisement on contract basis, if need be so.

4. There are also on record the Rules relating to the appointment/promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (House Keeping) and Manager (House Keeping). As far as the post of Assistant House Keeping is concerned, in terms of the rules, these posts are to be filled-in 50% by way of Direct Recruitment and 50% by way of promotion. Similarly, the post of Manager (House Keeping) is to be filled-in 25% by way of Direct Recruitment and 75% by way of promotion. The post of Assistant Manager (House Keeping) is to be filled-in by way of promotion from once House Keeper with at least three years of service as such on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and the post of Manager is to be filled-in by way of promotion from amongst Assistant Manager with atleast three years of service as such on the basis of merit-cum-seniority who fulfill the eligibility criteria.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that in the Rules relating to the posts of Manager and Assistant Manager, there is no provision of any appointment to these posts by way of LDR, yet the private respondents, were appointed to the posts concerned through L