Disposed

Manoj Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC1 Dec 2016W.P.(C)/1951/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi disposed of a writ petition challenging the exclusion of reservation for physically handicapped persons for Group B posts filled by promotion. Noting no dispute on the issue, the court allowed respondents to proceed with DPC proceedings and clarified that subsequent remedies lie in independent proceedings regarding specific circulars.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; respondents may proceed with DPC proceedings as the contested post is not eligible for reservation under relevant circulars.

Manoj Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 1951/2015

¶4

MANOJ KUMAR AND ANR. ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. R.K.Saini, Adv. and Ms. Minal, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Atul Jain, Adv. for R-2 to 4. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal and Mr. Ashish Jha, Adv. for R-5.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

¶9

O R D E R % 01.12.2016

¶10

The limited issue urged on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition

¶11

is that for the post of PGT(English), and which is a Group-B post, there can be reservation for physically handicapped person only with respect to the direct recruitment appointments, but not for these appointments to Group B posts which have to be filled in by promotion.

¶12

Respondent no.1 in this writ petition is the Director of Education and whose circulars/directions/OMs are binding on all schools in Delhi including respondent nos. 3 and 4-schools. The respondent no.1 in its counter-

¶13

affidavit, paragraphs 8 to 11 thereof, has specifically admitted that the reservation to the Group-B post for physically handicap persons cannot be in case of promotion to Group B post in view of OMs dated 29.12.2005 and 7.1.2015 issued by the Director of Education.

¶14

Accordingly, there is no dispute as regards the main issue that there cannot be reservation for the post in question which is a Group B post (being PGT(English)) for physically handicapped persons because the post in question is being filled by promotion and not by direct recruitment.

¶15

At this stage, counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 states that respondent

¶16

no.5 in the present case was considered for the post in question not on account of reservation of the post for physically challenged person but on account of respondent no.5 otherwise falling with the zone of consideration. The same is noted.

¶17

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and the respondent nos. 2 to 4 can now proceed ahead with the DPC proceedings and conclude the same in accordance with law because the respondent no.5 is not being considered for appointment because of reservation but because he falls in the zone of consideration without reservation.

¶18

In case, private respondent no.5 has any grievance against the circulars of the respondent no.1 dated 29.12.2005 and 7.1.2015, the respondent no.5 can, of course in accordance with law, seek to file appropriate independent proceedings.

¶19

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

¶20

DECEMBER 01, 2016 ib

Manoj Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

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

Amit Kumar Gupta Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Givo Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.

Bhagwati Prasad & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ex.Const. Satya Prakash Shukla Vs UOI & Ors.

Shaily Sharma Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court No IX and Ors.

Mahesh Pawar Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Vikas Khurana Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors.

Consulting Engineering Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ministry of Defence

Omaxe Limited Vs Ranjan Dagar and Another

Ranjan Dagar & Anr. Vs Omaxe Ltd.

Maira Jamal Vs Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical Univeristy for Women & Ors.

P K S Shrivastava Vs Union of India and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Vs Food Corporation of India & or

Namita Singh Vs University of Delhi & Anr.