Ramesh Kumar Meena & Ors v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors

order deited 16.03.2010. . 12. However, .we have to discuss something more qua the : clbim of the writ petitioners of W.P.(C)N o.L34312010 who have , claimedispecial equities in their favour and in respect of which pleadings, we iiriO tl'l.t the Tribunal has just not bothered to discuss the law on the subject.

¶13As, noted in para 8 above,'petitioner Santosh Kumar Meena istated that he was an employe"e under Western Railwayp and had been issued a letter of appointment by the Kendriyb Vidayalaya which he had not accepted as he had been offered appointmeni by the MCD. Petitioners Sushila Meena, iRnuj Kumar Ran Singh and Ganga Sahai Meena stated that sinbe they were issued letters of appointment by the MCD they did not take the examination conducted by the DSSSB for , filling up vacant post of teachers in the year 2009. Petitioner Saroj Dagar claimed to have resigned as a contractual Teacher when letter of offer giving appointment was issued to him. ; w. p. ( c) N o5. r.3a3l2 OrO, 3815 / 2010, 44s6 / 20L0 & 44s3 / ?OLO -i lL The, question arises whether said special facts pleaded by appointment. which them entitle them to retain the benefit of was wrongly given to them. J4. lt rnay be highlighted here that the writ petitioners of the other" three writ petitions were never issued any appointment .tetters and thus they stand on a different footing than the six petitipners of W.P.(C) No.1343l20LO who claims special equities in their favour.

15., Evgry appointment is a mdttdr of contract for the reason the empiloyer issues a letter of offer to the employee offering him appointment on the terms contained in the letter of offer and, oni acceptance by the employee, the contract of employment'stands concluded. Of course, where the employer is tl" Government or where the employment is governe,d by a Statute, the contiact acquires a status. Thus, it can be $aid that principles of conlract govern the instant case.

¶16. Asi perthe MCD it committed.a mistake as to a matter of fact by. issuing the letter of offer offering appointment; the mistake, being the MCD not realizing that the petitioners were not etiginle for being appointed as Primary Teachers on 't account of not possessing the ETF Degree/certificate by the prescribed cut-off date i.e. 29.10.2007.

¶17Section 20 of the Indian Contract Act LB72 reads: Where : both lhb parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter'of fact.essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.'

18.. lt iis apparent that every mistake as to a matter of fact .; does no,t rendef an agreement void. Mistake-s as to matters of fact eSsential to an agreement render the same void' Questioh arises whether possessing the requisite educational' :.. quanTtcauon oy the prescribed cut-off date is a matter of fact essential to the. agreement. The answer has to be in the .i, w. p. ( c) lv oi. rg+E/z oro, 38!s / 20ro, 44s6 / 2010 & 44s3 / 2O1O t , ( affirmative for the reason in matter pertaining to employment. everything which relates to the essential qualifications for the appAintnnent must of necessity relates to a matter of fact essential to the agreement which the parties may draw pertaining to the employment. Thus, on the principles of the law of contract, MCD would be entitled to claim that the offer and acceptance resulting in the contract has resulted irr a void ! contract.

19.. Promissory estoppel would also not apply in the instant casb, foi the reason, in the case of promissory estoppel the promise, which is sought to be later on withdrawn and in respect,of which withdrawal an estoppel is claimed is a valid pro;nise and not a promise based on a mistake of facts. Thi; court knows of no decision,'and indeed none was cited, where promisspry estopp"i *ut applied in respect of a promise which waS found to be void. The closest we could find on facts is a decision of the Allahabad High Court dated 16.09.2004 : 'r deciding second Appeal No.2556lL9B7 I,JOI & Ors. Vs. Kumari Mukta i,ain in which Kumari Mukta Jain was wrongly given appointment by the Kendriya Vidayalaya and later on it was found that she was not eligible for appointment. The I appointment was withdrawn. Kumari Mukta Jain sought a .: declaration that the order withdrawing her appointment was illegal. ;With reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in M.Trip'ufa Sunderi Devi's case (supra), it was held that an appointFnent o.f an ineligible person can be terrninated and : merely ,because she had worked for some time would create no equity in favour of Kumari Mukta Jain.

¶20lt,may be that the petitioners altered their position but they kriew completely well that they were not eligible to be appointed as Teachers, having not obtained the necessary qualifications by the prescribed date i.e. 29.10.2007 and thus Page L0 of 11 ;.. ! w. p. ( c) N o!. 1343/2 OtO, 38L5 / zOtO, 4456 / 20 L0 & 4453 / 20t0 lq they cannot claim to be innocent victims. VL.., Seryice law or jurisprudence. relating to service law pertaining to the right to be employees under: the Corporation prontotts us Trom granting any relief to the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No. L34312010, who may have a possible civil action for damages, if 'at all, , on account of sufferilg due to the . negligence of somebody in issuing letters of offer offering : employrhent to them. Needless to state they may chance .their luck, if thby so deSire by seeking damages upon proof of the fact' that employeds of the Corporation acted negligently and as a result of the negligence the said writ petitioners have sufferedi damages. Public law. remedy gives no right to the : said writ petitioners. :

¶22,Rllithe writ petitions are dismissed

¶23Ho,wever, we refrain from imposing any costs' ) ' -..r-t-/-s:?o-9/ (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE t \4-SEPTEMBER AG 07, ZOLO w. p. ( c) N oi. r g+s/z oro, 38rs / zoLo, 44s6 I 2010 & 44s3 I 20LO

t % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludament Delivered On: 07tn September. 2070 w.P.(cl No.38,t5/2O10 RAMESH KUMAR MEENA & ORS ... PCtitiONCTS Through: Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate. versus GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.Rattan Lal, Advocate for GNCT Of Delhi Mr.Anshum Jain, Adv. for Ms. Suparana Sri.vastava, Adv. for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether the Reporters of loca.l papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to RePorter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I. For orders see WP(C) No.L343120L0. -*tY (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MOO SEPTEMBER 07, 2O1O dk 't JUDG Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 4. I % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludqment Reserved On: 26th Auqus.t. 2070 .ludoment Delivered On: 7th September 2070 . w.P.(c) No.L343l20Lo SANTOSH KUMAR MEENA PCtitiONC T . ' Through: Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate. VCTSUS . GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ....Respondents Through: Mr.Anshum Jain, Adv. for Ms. Suparana Srivastava, AQv. for MCD Mr.Elgin MattJohn, Adv. for Ms. Anju Bhattacharya, Adv. for R-1&3. w.P.(cl No.38L5/2010 RAMESH KUMAR MEENA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate. VCTSUS ' GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents ' Through: Mr.Rattan Lal, Advocate for GNCT Of Delhi Mr.Anshum Jain, Adv. for Ms. Suparana Srivastava, Adv. for MCD. with '. Iudqment Reiserved On: 27th Auqust 2070 ' w.P,(cl= No.4456/20LO MAHESH CHAND MEENA & ORS .'... Petitioners . Through: Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate. VCTSUS ORS ..... Respondents .?.\' ,'. q" ,! : tg w. {. (c) N os. 1343/2 OLO, 387s / }OLO, 44s6 / 2010 & 4453 / 20LO GNCT OF DELHI AND Through: Mr.Anjum Javed, Adv. for R-1&2. Ms.Shobha Gupta, Adv. for R/MCD t w.P.(c) No.4453/20LO SUNITA MEENA Through: Mr.Rajat Aneja, ..... Petitioner Advocate. .': GNCT OF DELHI AND Through: ..... Respondents versus ORS I Mr.Anjum Javed, Adv. for R-1&2. Ms.Shobha Gupta, Adv. for R/MCD CORAM: '1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? I 2. 'To be.referred to Reporter or hot? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I. 1. On l,2.]:O.2OO7, the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Bo,a;d (DSSSB), acting on behalf of the Municipal Corpoiation of Delhi issued a public notice inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post'of Teacher (Primary). As per the advertisement, the last date of for applying i.e. submitting the application was 29.L0.2007. As per the advertisement, the applicable educational qualification to be qligible was:- ' , (i) Senior Secondary (10+2) or intermedtiate or its . equivalent . with 50% marks from a ; recognized Board (ii) Two Years Diploma/Certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.El.Ed ' front a recognized institution. , (iii) Must have passed Hindi as a subject as . seconda ry level. 2. Needless to state, vide serial No. (ii) of the three condition for eligibility was the candidate possessing either a w. p. ( c) N os. 1343/2 OrO, 3815 | }OtO, 4456 / 2010 & 4453 I 2OL0 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG ,t c, o'.t Page 2 of 11. tlt L two year Diploma or a Certificate course. in either of the three i.e. ETE, JBT or B,Bl.Ed. 3. The petitioners of the four captioned petitions who are mostly residents of Rajasthan and all of whom had appeared for examinations conducted by Univeisities either in the State of Rajasthan or State of Haryana pertaining to ETE course i.e. Elementary Teacher Education applied for being appointed as Elementary Teachers by submitting their applications. But, unfortunately for them their respective University had not declared the result by the cut-off date i.e. 29.70.20,07 4. The selection process envisaged a written test followed by an. interview. All the respondents successfully