Dismissed

Lokesh Kumar v. Keshav Chandra

Delhi HC12 Dec 2016W.P.(C)/11598/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court dismissed the applicant's writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting back wages. The Court held that since the Supreme Court did not direct payment of back wages, the Tribunal's direction on this issue did not survive.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no order as to costs. Previous order granting back wages was abandoned.

Lokesh Kumar Vs Keshav Chandra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

the user department for appointment. Further, we observe that it is only because of the wrong practice being followed by the DSSSB, the applicant has been deprived of his rightful claim for appointmentin time. Therefore, the applicant shall not be put to any disadvantage. Consequently,the respondentsshall grant him the benefit of seniority in the port of Assistant Chemist, from the due date. In this case since, no one else was appointedearlier and the result was admittedly declared on 01.04.2005, it would be fair and just that the applicantis consideredas appointedas AssistantChemist notionally after a month i.e. from 01.05.2005 accordingly. He shall also be paid the consequent arrears of pay and allowances within a period of one month thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs".

¶7

The DSSSB had challenged the order dated 29.02.2012 passed in O. A. No. 1493/2011 in the Writ PetitionNo. 5236/2012,which was dismissed reiterating that the name of the petitioner shall be forwarded to the DJB for the appointment as an Assistant Chemist. The High Court had observed that the petitioner who had secured second rank in the merit list in the OBC category, was entitled to the relief granted as the candidate who had secured the first rank was ineligible. The stand and stance of the DSSSB in not forwarding the petitioner's candidature was inappropriate and illegal. At the same time, the High Court realised that the DJB was to make the final call and decide the question of appointmentof the petitioner. The High Court had accordingly directed as under;-

¶8

"11. If any deficiency is found or noted in a certificate issued, the empanelled candidateis de-empanelled and the Board then takes a stand that since it has not drawn up a reserve list, it would not forward the name of the

^ ^

next selected candidate who is also above the qualifying mark limit prescribed. Not only does this breed litigation but even results in public posts remaining unfilled. As in the instant case, the Delhi Jal Board urgently requires an Assistant Chemist and we have respondent No.l as a selected candidate but yet the post is not being filled up because the Selection Board is refusing to send the dossier of respondent No.l to the Delhi Jal Board. We make it clear that the decision to fill up or not fill up the vacancy cannot be the decision of the Selection Board, which is merely a recruiting agency. The employer is not the Selection Board. The office or the department of the Government which sends the requisition to the Selection Board would alone have the right to determine whether or not to fill up the vacancy. In future the Selection Board would forward the names of all candidates who have secured marks above the eligible cut-off mark to the office or the department which has sent the requisition to the Selection Board to conduct the examination. It would then be for the said department to decide whether or not it would like to have candidates in the wait list. This would ensure that it is the employer who would decide whether to fill up the vacancy from the wait listed candidate if the candidates in the select list are found either ineligible or do not respond to the letters offering appointment. 12. We concur with the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal that the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board shall forward the name of respondent No.l to the Delhi Jal Board for being appointed as an Assistant Chemist. 13. The Writ petition is dismissed.

¶14

There shall be no order as to costs".

¶15

(emphasis supplied)

¶16

A reading of the aforesaid directions would show that the respondent's name was to be forwarded to the DJB for being appointed as Assistant Chemist. The petitioner was entitled to

¶17

considerationfor appointmentby the requisitioningdepartment,i.e., DJB.

¶18

Upon consideration,the petitionerwas appointed by the DJB and in view of the direction treated as notionally appointed as Assistant Chemist from 01.05.2005, and given seniority and promotions on the said basis.

¶19

^^ '

¶20

¶21

The petitioner is aggrieved that he has not been paid back wages from the date of notional appointment.We do not think that the order of the High Court had directedpaymentof back wages. To this extent, the dhection of the Tribunal had merged and was rnodified by the aforestated directions of the High Court. This is apparentfrom the highlightedportionquoted above as it was for the requisitioningdepartmentto decidewhethertheywould liketo have a candidate from the "waiting" list. Even successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against existing vacancies. Departmentneed not fill up all or any vacancy,unlessthe relevantRule so indicate. Right to consideris different,from right to appointment.

¶22

There is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

^ 40

SANJIVKHANNA,J

JAYANT NATH, J

DECEMBER 14,2016/b

Lokesh Kumar v. Keshav Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Kumar v. Keshav Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mehkar Singh Vs Indian Law Institute and Ors.

Vikas Kumar Chawla and Ors. Vs Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Rohit Chopra Vs the Chairman Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences and Ors.

Parveen Kumar Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Sps Steels Rolling Mills Ltd. & Anr. Vs Appellate Authority of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Ors.

Groupon Holdings B.V. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Jai Singh Sharma Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Rajvir Singh

Vishnu Shankar Prasad Vs Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and Ors.

Sanjay & Ors. Vs Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Jamia Cooperative Bank Limited & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Anil Bansal Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Harihar Prasad Das Vs Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board & Anr.