ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner, who is working as Chief Engineer (Civil) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, has filed the writ petition seeking for the regularisation of his appointments in the grades of EE(C), SE(C) and CE(C) from due dates when, according to him, he should have been regularly ap-pointed, and for consequential benefits.
2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition, to be noticed, are thus:
3. In July, 1976, the MCD issued an advertisement in the Press for the purpose of filling up the posts reserved for SC/ST categories as A.E.(C). The petitioner applied and in the selection held, he was selected. On the 21st of May, 1977, the petitioner joined MCD as A.E.(C). On the 27th of May, 1982, the petitioner was promoted as E.E.(C) w.e.f. 31.5.1982 and this was on ad hoc basis.
4. On the 17th of October, 1984, the MCD issued a circular with reference to the confirmation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of all categories. The circular reads as under :-
“It has been observed that the procedure regarding confirmation of Scheduled Caste/Schedules Tribes employees laid down in Chapter 17 of the Brochure on Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Services (Sixth Edition) published by the department of personnel, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in 1982 is not being followed strictly. In case the Brochure is not available in the department, the same may be obtained from the market as it is a period publication.
All the Heads of Departments are, therefore, requested to follow the guidelines as per instruction laid down in the above referred chapter for confirmation of employees in General Wing of the MCD.”
5. On the 29th of September, 1987, the petitioner was promoted as SE(C) on ad hoc basis. The order to this effect was passed on the 29th of Septem-ber, 1987 and the same reads as under :-
“Shri R.K. Meena, Executive Engineer (Civil) is entrusted the current duty charges of the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) his own pay scale with immediate effect.
The appointment of the officer is subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The appointment is in the officer’s own pay scale.
(ii) The interim arrangement can be terminated without assigning any reason and giving any prior notice.
(iii) It will not confer any right on the officer for claiming ad hoc or regular appointment to the post or any other service benefit.
(iv) The period of service rendered on current charge duty will not count as officiating in the higher grade for any purpose.
(v) Other conditions of service will be governed by the relevant rules and orders that may be in force from time to time.
Shri Meena is directed to report to Engineer-in-Chief for his further posting.
This issues with the approval of the Commissioner.”
6. On the 7th of December, 1987, the resolution passed by the MCD on the 23rd of November, 1987 approving the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner to the post of S.E.(C) was communicated. On the 19th of February, 1988, the petitioner was appointed as E.E.(C) on regular basis. The petitioner has accepted this. According to this petitioner, the MCD issued a provisional seniority list on the 13th of March, 1988. He made representation on the 14th of April, 1988.
7. The petitioner made a representation on the 27th of August, 1993 for his being considered for the post of C.E.(C). He made further representa-tions on 19.1.1994, 27.1.1994. On the 31st of May, 1995, the petitioner was promoted CE(C) on ad hoc basis. On the 14th of October, 1996, the petition-er was promoted as C.E.(C) on regular basis.
8. According to the petitioner, if he had been promoted on regular basis as E.E(C) in May, 1992, he would have earned his regular promotions in the grade of S.E.(C) and C.E.(C) when the vacancies arose. According to the petitioner, the MCD did not take any action to hold DPC for filling up the vacancies from 1971 to 1987.
9. It is on these averments, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
10. According to the petitioner the MCD did not follow the Government instructions with reference to filling up the vacancies reserved for SC/ST categories, and the MCD was fully aware of the fact that the vacancies reserved for SC/ST categories cannot be filled up by appointing candidates from general category. The MCD should have followed the principles of de-reservation of the vacancies in the event of non-availability of suitable SC/ST candidates.
11. According to the petitioner, if the MCD had acted in accordance with rules with reference to reservation, he should have been regularised as S.E.(C) w.e.f. 29.9.1987 and he should have been promoted as C.E.(C) on 1.7.1994. According to the petitioner, the top level post of Engineering-in-Chief fell vacant on the 31st of January, 1987 and the petitioner’s case should have been considered.
12. The MCD, in the counter-affidavit, has stated that the petitioner is guilty of latches. On the dates, referred to by the petitioner, he was not qualified to be considered for promotion to the promotion post and the petitioner’s case was considered and he was promoted as per the rules and he cannot have any grievance. In explaining the factual matrices in para-graph 7 of the counter-affidavit, the MCD has stated.
“The following factual conspectus of the case my also be noted. The petitioner admittedly has been appointed against the ST quota as A.E. (Civil) in the MCD under the direct recruitment quota. Upon acceptance of the terms and conditions of offer as contained in the appointment letter dated 02.05.1977, the petitioner was formally appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the direct recruitment quota w.e.f. 21.05.1977 on probation for a period of 2 years. For that taking stock of the regular appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the Direct Recruitment quota along with other similar situated candidates the answering respondent/MCD issued a provisional seniority list dated 27.12.1985 in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) appointed up to the year 1977 and objections, if any, from the concerned officers against the proposed placement was invited. In response to the said provisional seniority list proposing the placement of the petitioner at seniority No. 82, the petitioner did not make any representation or objection either to the said seniority list or his seniority placement meaning thereby that petitioner has accepted his placement in the provisional seniority list. After having considered all the objections made by other candidates in the light of the instructions pertaining to seniority prevailing at that point of time. The seniority of the petitioner in the final seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was finalised and determined at Sl. No. 83 again the petitioner did not raise any objection whatsoever against the said final seniority list dated 20.8.1986.
Thereafter, by reckoning the date of regular appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 21.05.1977, the petitioner’s case for promotion along with other eligible candidates who came within the zone of consideration was considered on ad hoc basis during the year, 1982. In view of the exigency of the work and multi furious litigations launched by various Engineering personnels of the MCD in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (C), the matter of fixation of seniority and its determination caused the delay in convening the Departmental promotion Committee.
The following are those cases wherein seniority disputes were agitated by the Engineering personnels of the MCD viz. CWP No. 327/71, LPA No. 159/77 titled as Lashkar Singh Vs. MCD. LPA No. 327/71 B.C. Gupta & Others Vs. MCD. Even otherwise, the answering respondent is following the instruction issued by the Government of India in establishment matters under DMC Service Regulations Act, 1959 vide Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/91-ESH(A) dated 14 September, 1992, in terms whereof it has been decided by the Central Government that in cases of vacancies relating to the earlier years, the promotions shall relate only prospectively and not retrospectively. The relevant portion of OM No. 22011/4/91 ESH(A) dated 14.09.1992 is reproduced hereunder :-
“6.4.4. Promotions only
Prospective:
While promotions will be made in the order consolidated list, such promotions will have only the prospective effect even in cases where the vacancies relate to the earlier years.
Further Clause 1710 governs with the general principle promotion of the Officers included in the panel would be regular from the date of validity of the panel or the date of their actual promotions, whichever is later.”
It is stated that the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner to the post of Ex. Engineer was made regular w.e.f. 11.8.1987 i.e. on the date of the recommendation of the UPSC. It is submitted that the post of Ex. Engineer (Civil) in the MCD being a category ‘A’ and a selection post therefore the concurrence of the UPSC under Section 98 of the DMC Act is Mandatorily to be followed by the MCD.
It is submitted that the DPC for the consideration of all the eligible candidates including the petitioner during the year 1987 was constituted by the UPSC and after taking into consideration the entire circumstances by the UPSC and after taking into consideration the entire circumstances vis-a-vis seniority-cum-fitness and the assessment of the concerned officials, the select panel was drawn up by the UPSC. On the basis of DPC rules and regulations adopted by the MCD on the pattern of the Central Government, the recommendations of the UPSC were given effect to and the petitioner again without any objections the post of Ex. Engineer (C) w.e.f. 11.8.1987 and thereafter discharged the duties attached to the post. It may also be noted here that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (C) as well as promotion to the post of Ex. Engineer (C) has been granted to the petitioner after taking due care of the reservation roster/instructions applicable to the SC/ST candidates on the basis of the instruction issued by the Government of India and adopted and followed by the MCD from time to time.
In the said premises no mala fides can be attributed to the findings of the DEC/Select Committee which has made promotions on the basis of the existing Rules & Regulations.”
13. It is stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit:
“The deponent states that after taking into consideration the regular appointment of the petitioner to the post of Ex. Engineer (Civil), the seniority of all eligible and regularly appointed candidates have been determined as per instructions prevalent at that time and that the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Ex. Engineer (Civil) was finalised vide No. F.8(38)/CED(II)/88/40/23951 dated 31.10.1998.”
14. It is further stated that seniority of the officers in the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) was finalised after following the procedure prescribed. The MCD referred to CWP 2088/92 filed by Tirath Raj challenging the provisions in the seniority list issued by the MCD. After receiving the objections on the 2nd of June, 1995, the seniority list was finalised and the petitioner was placed at serial No. 13 and the final seniority list was issued on the 14th of August, 1995. According to the MCD, this seniority list is being following for considering the officers for further promo-tions. According to the MCD, the petitioner was given ad hoc appointment as SE(C) w.e.f. 28.9.1987 and he was given regular promotion w.e.f. 4.10.1996, which the petitioner had accepted.
15. The MCD has stated that during his service, the case of the petitioner was considered in all stages and was placed in the seniority list as per the length of service put in by him and he was considered for promotion and was promoted in accordance with law and the petitioner cannot have any grievance.
16. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit by the MCD that the officers who had been promoted had not been parties to the writ petition, and those officers will be affected in the event of petitioner succeeding in the writ petition, and deliberately, the petitioner had not chosen to implead those officer and on that ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Tikku, submitted that the MCD has not followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court, in “Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Employees Association & Others Vs. Union of India & Others,” 1990 Supp. SCC 350 : 1991 SCC (L & S) 440, to show that the reservation system had not been followed by the MCD. The learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in “Kuldip Chand Vs. Union of India & Others”, , to show that mere rejection of representations would not disentitle the petitioner to agitate his grievance in a writ petition. To get over the point raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that necessary parties had not been imp leaded the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Tikku, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in “B. Prabha-kar Rao & Others, etc. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others etc.” , for the purpose of showing that not impleading all affected employ-ees would not make the writ petition unmaintainable.
18. In the light of the facts projected by the writ petitioner himself, I am quite unable to see how the petitioner could be said to be aggrieved at all. His case was considered throughout and he had been given due promo-tions as Chief Engineer and his claim of further promotions would be con-sidered by the MCD in accordance with law. When that is the position, the petitioner cannot seek to agitate his rights claiming regular appointments from 1982 as EE(C) and from 1987 CE(C). The principles laid down by the Supreme Court with reference to the system would not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. I am quite unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had been deprived of his Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.