Nirmal Negi v. Mcd

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

February 9, 2011 ssb

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 7377/2010 % Date of Decision: February 9, 2011 Nirmal Negi …. Petitioner Through Mr. N.Parashar, Advocate Versus The Municipal Corporation of Delhi …. Respondent Through Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? yes Veena Birbal, J. * 1. By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19th February, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') in T.A.No.841/2009 wherein aforesaid T.A has been dismissed being devoid of merits. 2. Petitioner was appointed as L.D.C with respondent in 1990 and was confirmed on 16th April, 1993. The respondent invited applications from the departmental candidates for unspecified posts of `Hindi Translator' vide circular dated 19th February, 2003. The examination for the aforesaid posts was held on 14th February, 2004. The result was declared on 25th March,2004 and select panel of four persons was prepared and from May 21, 2004 to June 17, 2004, the vacancies on the basis of aforesaid panel were filled. Petitioner has alleged that vide letter dated 25th October, 2005, under RTI, he was informed that he had secured 109 in the said examination and his rank was 5th. The case of the petitioner is that against the five vacancies of `General category' including two anticipated vacancies which were to arise on 30th April, 2004 & 1st August, 2004 respectively, only panel of four persons was prepared and as such, petitioner was affected by the decision of the respondent in not including the 2nd anticipated vacancy. Petitioner made representation for inclusion of his name in the panel but no action was taken by the respondent. Petitioner filed a WP(C) 7707/2007 before this court. Vide order dated 29th October, 2007 of this court, the said petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 1st March, 2006 within two weeks by passing a speaking order. Thereafter, respondent on 21st November, 2007 passed a speaking order and rejected the representation of the petitioner. Aggrieved with the same, petitioner filed another petition being WP(C) 9154/2007 before this court. Pursuant to the Government Notification dated 1st December, 2008 by which service dispute in case of MCD were to be heard by the Tribunal and accordingly, the aforesaid petition was transferred to the Tribunal where it was registered as TA 841/2009. 3. The stand of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that respondent ought to have prepared a select panel keeping in view not only the actual existing vacancies but also the anticipated vacancies. It was contended that respondent took only one anticipated vacancy as against two. It was contended that one anticipated vacancy was to arise on the retirement of Mr.Gopi Chand Bhadwaj and other on the promotion of Mr.Prem Chand Sharma in August, 2004. It was contended that the action of the respondent in not taking the anticipated vacancy of August, 2004 in preparing the select panel had affected the petitioner who was 5th in position. Petitioner contended that when one anticipated vacancy of April, 2004 was taken into consideration, respondent ought to have taken the other anticipated vacancy of August, 2004 into consideration while preparing the select panel. 4. The stand of the respondent before the Tribunal was that out of seven vacancies existing at the relevant time, four belonged to UR category and a panel for the financial year 2003-04 was drawn. The vacancies which the petitioner is contending arose only in the financial year 2004-2005 and those vacancies could not have been included in the panel of 2003-2004. Respondent-MCD had also filed its a