* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 1790/2006
% DATE OF DECISION : 8th September, 2008
ASHOK KUMAR YADAV ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. G.D. Rustagi, Advocate.
versus
DELHI JAL BOARAD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
JUDGMENT
MUKUL MUDGAL, J: (ORAL)
CMA NO. 11660/2006
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the
appeal is condoned.
2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
LPA 1790/2006
1. Having condoned the delay with the consent of the parties the
LPA is taken up for final hearing.
2. This appeal is filed against the order of learned Single Judge
Page 1 of 3
dated 30th September, 2005 in CWP 7110/2003. The prayer in the
writ petition was as follows:-
“(a) quashing the impugned order dated 26.9.2003;
(b) directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner
on the post of Sewer Cleaning Machine Driver (S.C.M.
Driver) as stated in the order dated 3.1.2000 issued by
the respondent.
(c) directing the respondent to regularise the
appointment of the petitioner against the post of S.C.M.
Driver considering the fact that the petitioner has been
continuing as a muster roll wage earner since 1992 till
date and has put in 2064 days from 1996 to 2002 (figures
off the year 2003 not furnished by respondent)”
3. The learned Single Judge has recorded two findings. First that
mere figuring in the select list cannot automatically give a right of
appointment. In so far as that finding is concerned we are in
agreement that the said finding cannot be assailed, accordingly that
finding is affirmed.
4. The appellant has, however, also raised a grievance in respect
of the other finding of learned Single Judge :-
“……In the present case the Respondents withdrew the
offer and instead decided to give the appointment to
those entitled to it as per the rules on the basis of a
seniority list maintained by them. This in my view is not
arbitrary or in any manner irrational.
8. In view of the above observations, Petitioner is not
entitled to any relief. It is however recorded that the
Petitioner’s seniority is at Serial No. 831 in the seniority
list as on 7.8.2004. Counsel for the Respondents would
proceed to make appointments as per said list to the post
of Sewer Cleaning Machine Driver. The petition isPage 2 of 3
accordingly disposed off in the light of the said
observations and statement.”
5. It is not disputed that the said seniority list had never been filed
before the learned Single Judge. In fact, the seniority list has only
been furnished in this court in appeal.
6. The appellant has several grievances regarding the list of
seniority and his placement at serial No. 831 in seniority list including
the grievance that unskilled workers like Beldars have been included.
Since the seniority list had never been filed before the learned Single
Judge, the above extracted finding is set aside. The appeal is
consequently partly allowed. It is made clear that appellant will be
entitled to challenge his fixation of seniority as per the above seniority
list or otherwise in accordance with law.
7. The LPA stands disposed of accordingly.
MUKUL MUDGAL, J
MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 08, 2008
rb
Page 3 of 3