Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Rajinder Sachar, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Rajinder Sachar, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judgment Summary: Rajinder Sachar, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges several appointments to the post of Executive Engineer made by the Municipal Corporation (respondent No.1) on 31-12-1963 (effective 1-1-1964), in 1966, and on 9-11-1968 (and consequent approvals in 1969). The petitioner, who obtained a diploma of Overseer in 1944, served as Section Officer from 1945 to 1953, joined the Joint Water and Sewage Board/Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking in April 1953, and was promoted to Assistant Engineer on 4-4-1959, taking charge on 8-4-1959.

The petitioner contends that (a) certain Assistant Engineers junior to him were promoted to Executive Engineer in the 1963 promotions (resolution No. 812 dated 31-12-1963), (b) the recruitment regulations framed in 1966 (and selection decisions in 1966) discriminated by preferring degree-holders over diploma-holders, and (c) he was not considered by the Internal Selection Board(s) which met in March 1967 (dates in the record appear as 17-3-1967 and alternately as 7-3-1967) and later selection processes, although he had completed the requisite period of service (as he contends).

The Corporation's return contended at different points that differing eligibility periods applied to diploma holders (variously four, seven, or ten years were asserted at different stages) and that the petitioner in some instances was not eligible; the Corporation also raised a preliminary objection of delay. The petition was heard with reference to previous litigation involving O.P. Gupta (and related L.P.A. decisions), which is repeatedly relied upon by the court in assessing the present claims.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the promotions to Executive Engineer effected with effect from 1-1-1964 (by resolution dated 31-12-1963) were made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by excluding the petitioner who was senior to certain promotees.
  2. Whether the 1966 recruitment rules and practice—by specifying a degree qualification and excluding diploma-holder Assistant Engineers from promotion—were arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16.
  3. Whether, at the time of the Internal Selection Board meeting(s) in March 1967, diploma-holder Assistant Engineers (including the petitioner) were eligible for consideration (i.e., whether the eligibility period for diploma-holders was seven years or ten years), and whether the petitioner's non-consideration violated Articles 14 and 16.
  4. Whether the later promotions/approvals (including decisions made in 1968–1969) were valid with respect to the petitioner's claim of equality and whether the writ is barred by delay.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner alleged that he was senior to some Assistant Engineers promoted to Executive Engineer and that he was not considered for promotion in 1963 despite having the requisite service, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16.
  • The petitioner challenged the recruitment regulations and selection practice of 1966 (degree-only specification and exclusion of diploma-holders) as violative of Articles 14 and 16.
  • The petitioner asserted that by March 1967 he had completed seven years' service as an Assistant Engineer and therefore ought to have been considered by the Internal Selection Board; he maintained that seven years (not ten) was the applicable eligibility period at that time.
  • In reply to the delay objection, the petitioner explained interlocutory steps he took (representations to the Corporation, earlier writ petitions—some withdrawn, a writ in the Supreme Court earlier withdrawn—and reliance on related proceedings by another diploma-holder, O.P. Gupta) and therefore contended he was not guilty of unreasonable delay.

Respondent Corporation's Arguments

  • With reference to 1963 promotions, the Corporation asserted that a diploma-holder needed seven years' service to be eligible and that the petitioner did not satisfy that criterion, so his non-selection was justified; the inclusion of another diploma-holder (Shri K.L. Kapur) was said to have been inadvertent and later not selected.
  • For the 1966 promotions, the Corporation relied on the then-framed Recruitment Rules and contended that diploma-holders were not to be considered and only degree-holders were eligible.
  • For the 1967 selection, the Corporation asserted that the eligibility period for diploma-holders had been fixed at ten years and that the petitioner had not completed ten years by the time of the Internal Selection Board, so there was no right to consideration.
  • The Corporation raised a preliminary objection of delay, asserting that challenges to promotions made in 1963 and 1967 were belated.
  • At the hearing the Corporation's counsel (Mr. Rameshwar Dial) ultimately conceded that, in at least one instance, the Corporation could not support its earlier affirmative statement that the petitioner had been considered (re 1969 appointments), and he argued the Commissioner may have been under a misapprehension regarding the applicable eligibility period.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
O.P. Gupta v. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, L.P.A. 110/71 (reported as 1973 (1) SLR 209) (bench decision) Determination of the eligibility period and permissibility of recruitment specifications; bench decision that the basis for consideration for promotion as on 1-1-1964 was four years' service for Assistant Engineers; also upheld the specification of degree for Executive Engineer (i.e., that degree requirement was not arbitrary) in respect of later promotions. The court followed and applied the O.P. Gupta bench decision to (a) hold that the petitions concerning appointments effective 1-1-1964 were maintainable in the petitioner's favour (because the O.P. Gupta bench ruled consideration basis was four years) and (b) to reject the petitioner's challenge to the 1966 degree-specification since that decision had upheld the degree requirement as not arbitrary.
Triloki Nath Khosla v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir, L.P.A.—Writ—No. 7 of 1971, decided 16-6-1972 (reported as 1973 (1) S.L.R. 64) Represents a different view (from J&K High Court) as to the validity of excluding diploma-holders; cited by petitioner to show conflicting authority. The court noted this decision but declined to follow it because, sitting singly, the judge was bound by the decisions of this High Court (i.e., the court gave precedence to the local bench decision in O.P. Gupta rather than the Jammu & Kashmir High Court's view) and therefore did not consider the J&K decision in detail.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded grievance by grievance and relied extensively on prior bench decisions (notably the O.P. Gupta matter) and on the documentary record of the Corporation's resolutions, correspondence with the Commission (U.P.S.C./Commission), and the Commissioner’s letters.

  1. 1963 promotions (effective 1-1-1964): The court observed that the question whether four or seven years' service was the basis for considering diploma-holder Assistant Engineers need not be re-litigated in full because a bench in O.P. Gupta had "definitely ruled that the basis for consideration for promotion was four years service." On that basis the petitioner's grievance concerning the 1963 promotions was held to be justified and he was entitled to the same relief as granted in O.P. Gupta.
  2. 1966 promotions and recruitment regulations: The court recorded that by 1966 Recruitment Rules had been framed and the Corporation's standard at that time was to consider only degree-holder Assistant Engineers. The court followed the O.P. Gupta bench decision, which had rejected the challenge based on Articles 14 and 16 and held that specifying a degree requirement for Executive Engineer could not be said to be arbitrary or violative of equality. Although a contrary view was cited from Triloki Nath Khosla (J&K), the judge stated he was bound by the High Court’s own precedents and thus refused to adopt the J&K view; the petitioner's challenge to the 1966 appointments therefore failed.
  3. 1967 Internal Selection Board (March 1967) and promotions recommended in 1968: The court examined the recruitment rules adopted by the Corporation on 5-12-1963 (Resolution No. 732) which, in the corporation's finalized Regulations as placed before the court, provided that graduates with five years' service and "others" with seven years' service in the grade would be eligible for promotion by selection. The court found that although later correspondence and recommendations were exchanged with the Commission (including a recommendation raising eligibility for diploma-holders to ten years and the Commission's eventual approval), the Corporation did not adopt the ten-year change until 17-10-1967. Consequently, at the time the Internal Selection Board met in March 1967 (the record contains references to both 17-3-1967 and 7-3-1967), the legally valid regulations in force were those providing for seven years' eligibility for diploma-holder Assistant Engineers. The court therefore held that the petitioner (who had by then completed seven years) should have been considered by the Board and that his non-consideration was unjustified.
  4. 1969 approvals (appointments recommended in 1968 and approved in 1969): The court accepted the Corporation’s concession that by 17-10-1967 the eligibility had been revised to ten years. Since the petitioner (appointed Assistant Engineer in April 1959) had not completed ten years by the time the Internal Selection Board met on 23-5-1968 (and by the time the Corporation approved the relevant promotions in March 1969), he was not eligible under the rules then in force, and his grievance in respect of these later promotions failed.
  5. Delay objection: The Corporation contended the petition was barred by delay since the 1963 and 1967 promotions were being challenged many years later. The court reviewed the petitioner’s procedural history (representations to the Corporation, earlier writ petitions including those withdrawn, the parallel litigation by O.P. Gupta which was ongoing, and the ad hoc character of the 1963 promotions pending finalization of Rules) and followed the reasoning in the Division Bench decision in the O.P. Gupta matter that, given the ad hoc nature of early promotions and the Corporation's ongoing dealings with the Commission, it was not unreasonable for a diploma-holder to await clarification of the Rules. The court therefore rejected the plea of delay.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: Petition partly allowed.

Direct consequences and relief ordered by the court (as taken verbatim from the opinion and applied to the parties):

  • The writ petition is allowed in part in respect of the promotions for the years 1963 and 1967.
  • The Corporation is directed to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer as at 1-1-1964 and, if the petitioner is found fit, to treat him as promoted on an ad hoc basis from 1-1-1964 on the same terms as other Assistant Engineers promoted on that date and thereafter to treat him in the same way as those promoted Assistant Engineers have been treated.
  • If the petitioner is not found fit for promotion with effect from 1-1-1964, a writ is issued directing the Corporation to consider the petitioner’s case as of 7-3-1967 (the Internal Selection Board date is recorded in the opinion with both 17-3-1967 and 7-3-1967 in places) and, if found fit, to treat him as promoted on an ad hoc basis from that date on the same terms as other Assistant Engineers promoted on that date and thereafter to treat him in the same way as those promoted Assistant Engineers have been treated.
  • The petitioner’s challenge to the promotions made in 1966 and 1969 is rejected.
  • Costs: As there is divided success, each party is to bear its own costs.

Broader implications: The court followed existing division-bench authority (O.P. Gupta) on both the question of the applicable eligibility period for early promotions and on the permissibility of a degree-specification in later recruitment rules; the judgment does not purport to lay down a new general precedent beyond applying those authorities to the facts before it.

Disposition

Petition allowed in part as described above.

Show full summary ...

    R.L Gupta (Petitioner) v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi Etc. (S).

    Rajinder Sachar, J.:— This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution relates to the appointments to the post of Executive Engineer made by respondent No. 1 on 31-12-1963, 28-3-1966 and 9-11-1968. It also challenges the recruitment regulations made for the appointment of Executive Engineers in the year 1966 as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

    2. The petitioner obtained a diploma of Overseer from Government School of Engineering Punjab in 1944 and served as Section Officer in Punjab P.W.D and Central P.W.D from March, 1945 to March, 1953. The petitioner passed Section ‘A’ and in four subjects of 6 in Section ‘B’ of the A.M.I.E Examination. The petitioner joined as Section Officer in Joint Water and Sewage Board Delhi State under the Superintending Engineer Health Services, on 14th April, 1953, and thereafter his services were transferred to newly formed Water Supply and Sewage Disposals Undertaking on coming into existence of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 31-5-1958. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 4-4-1959 and took over on 8th April, 1959.

    3. The first grievance of the petitioner is based on the allegation that by resolution No. 812 dated 31-12-1963 the Corporation promoted certain respondents 3 to 5 with effect from 1-1-1964 who were then working as Assistant Engineer as Executive Engineer. It is alleged that though those respondents are juniors to the petitioner yet their cases were considered but the petitioner was ignored. It is maintained that the criteria for considering the cases was fixed as four years service irrespective of the fact whether the Assistant Engineer was a diploma holder or a graduate in engineering. The respondent-corporation in the return has taken the plea that a diploma holder with seven years service was only eligible and it was for this reason that the petitioner's name was ignored. The name of Shri K.L Kapur who was also a diploma holder and junior to the petitioner and had four years and 2 months service as against the petitioners service of 4 years four months is said to have been included by inadvertance. It is also pointed out in the return that as Shri K.L Kapur has not been selected there is no violation of equality clause. The question that arises, therefore, is whether the basis for consideration of the cases of diploma holder Assistant Engineers when promotions were mace on 1-1-1964 was four years or seven years. Admittedly the petitioner's case could only be considered if the basis was four years and not seven years. It is, however, not necessary for me to go into various resolutions and documents which have been filed by the petitioner and the respondents for this purpose. I am relieved of this in cessity because in a similar matter filed by another Assistant Engineer, the same arguments were gone into and the matter has now been decided on 4-9-1972 in L.P.A 110/71 (O.P Gupta v. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi) 1973 (1) SLR 209. The bench in that case has not accepted the contention of the respondent corporation that at the time of making promotion on 1-1-1964 the requisite period of service taken into account was seven years. It has definitely ruled that the basis for consideration for promotion was four years service in the grade of Assistant Engineers under the Corporation. In that view of the matter the grievance of the petitioner is justified and he is entitled to the issue of writ (as was done in O.P Gupta's case) with respect to the appointments of Executive Engineers made by the respondent-corporation with effect from 1-1-1964.

    4. The next grievance relates to the promotion made in 1966 of respondents 6 to 9. By that time it appears that the Recruitment Rules had been framed and the standard adopted by the Corporation was that diploma holder Assistant Engineers whatever be their length of service were not to be considered for promotion and only degree-holder Assistant Engineers were eligible for promotion. This standard is challenged by the petitioner to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A similar argument based on the violation of Articles 14 and 16 was also raised before the bench in O.P Gupta's case and has been rejected and where the bench has taken the view that this specification of degree for the post of executive engineer cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of the equality clause. Mr. Gupta in this connection referred to me a judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court namely Triloki Nath Khosla v. The State of J and K, 1973 (1) S.L.R 64 (L.P.A—Writ—No. 7 of 1971), decided on 16-6-1972 and urged that this decision had taken a view different from one which has been taken by this court. While sitting singly, I am bound by the judgment of this High Court. It is unnecessary, therefore, to consider in detail the judgment of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. Following the decision in O.P Gupta's case, it is apparent that the petitioner cannot challenge the appointment made in 1966. This contention, therefore, fails.

    5. The next grievance of the petitioner relates to the fact that the Internal Selection Board was held on 17-3-1967 to consider the case of the persons for promotion as Executive Engineer and in pursuance of that selection respondents 10, 11, and 12 were promoted by the Corporation by means of Resolution No. 528 dated 9.1.1968 The petitioner's complaint is that though he had completed 7 years service by 17-3-1967 his case was not considered and thus there has been violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondent-Corporation in reply has maintained that the basis for selection was 10 years service in the case of the diploma holders Assistant Engineers and as the petitioners had not completed the same period, he was not eligible to be considered and there is no question of super session and violation of Articles 14 and 16. It is true that if the criteria for considering the cases was 10 years the petitioner has no grievance because on 7-3-1967 when the Internal Selection Board considered the names of the various persons the petitioner had not completed 10 years as Assistant Engineer. The petitioner, however, maintains that the basis for consideration was 7 years and not 10 years. It appears that the Recruitment Rules for the post of Executive Engineer which had been tentatively agreed to by the U.P.S.C and which were approved by the Corporation by its Resolution No. 732 dated 5-12-1963 (Annexure XII) provided in the case of recruitment by promotion the cases of Assistant Engineers (Graduates with 5 years in the grade and others with 7 years Service in the grade will be eligible for consideration). Though there was some discrepancy in column 7 and column 11 of the Regulations approved by the Corporation dated 5-12-1963, the Corporation acted on the understanding that the diploma holders with seven years' service were eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The matter having been referred to Commission the later on one stage suggested that the diploma holder Assistant Engineers should not be considered eligible. The Corporation, however, was of the view that the diploma holder Assistant Engineers with seven years service should be eligible and, therefore, took up the matter with the commission. After a great deal of protracted correspondence the commission by its letter dated 6th July, 1966 agreed that the diploma holder Assistant Engineers be also considered eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers. If the had ten years service, instead of Seven years' service as suggested, by the respondent-corporation. The Commissioner accordingly put the matter to the Corporation by means of his letter dated 8-12-1966 requesting that the recommendation of the commission for providing for a period of 10 years in case of diploma holder Assistant Engineers be approved. The Corporation, however, adopted the recommendation of the Commission by its Resolution No. 367 only on 17-10-1967. Naturally prior to this date i.e 17-10-1967 the Corporation was proceeding on the basis of that diploma holder Assistant Engineers with 7 years experience were eligible. This is clear from a reference to a meeting of the Corporation held on 5-12-1963 (annexure XII) where approval was given to the Recruitment Regulation which has been finalized by the Corporation in consultation with the U.P.S.C vide their resolution No. 732 of 5-12-1963. The Recruitment Rules provide that in case of promotion of Assistant Engineer graudate with five years service and other witty 7 years service in the grade will be eligible for promotion. On 7-3-1967, therefore, the only valid Rules which were in force in the Corporation were the ones which provided eligibility for seven years period for those other than graduate Assistant Engineers. The further recommendations of the Commission which was approved by the Corporation raiding this period from 7 years to 10 years was not adopted until 17-10-1967. The justification, therefore, in the reply of the Corporation that as the basis for consideration was 10 years, the petitioner was rightly excluded cannot be up-held.

    6. As a matter of fact in annexure II which has been filed by the respondent Corporation a reference to Urgent Business No. 552 Con 24-3-1969) before the Corporation shows that there is a mention of Commissioner's a letter 212.C&C dated 13-2-1969. In that letter the Commissioner has clearly stated that at the time of the meeting of the Internal Selection Board on 7-3-1967 the only legally valid regulations were the one which provided for 7 years service in the case of diploma holder Assistant Engineers and were raised to 10 years on 17-10-1967. Mr. Rameshwar Dial, learned counsel for the respondent-corporation sought to contend that the commissioner was under a mis-apprehension I do not see how and with what justification this argument is being put forward. Surely, the Commissioner would know as to whether the period was 7 years or 10 years. A reference in this collection be also made to O.P Gupta's case. The bench has observed that on this question of service in the grade different statements have been made on behalf of the Corporation at different times. It has also been pointed out that the respondent-corporation in a suit which was filed against it by O.P Gupta who was the petitioner in a writ out of which L.P.A 120/71 had arisen, the Corporation had filed a reply that the Diploma holder Assistant Engineers can become entitled for being considered for the post of Executive Engineer only if they have put in seven years service as Assistant Engineers. Mr. Rameshwar Dial, pointed out that in the L.P.A decision their lordships had also observed that the petitioner in that case might have been considered also on the basis that he completed 10 years in the grade. It is true that the bench has not positively decided whether it was 7 years period or 10 years period which was the basis. The various resolutions of the Municipal Corporation show quite unmistakably that the eligibility in the case of diploma holder Assistant Engineers was 7 years and the period was changed to 10 years only on 17-10-1967. In that view, the diploma holder Assistant Engineers had a right to be considered by the Internal Selection Board when it met on 7-3-1967. Mr. Rameshwar Dial in order to support the contention that the Corporation had fixed 10 years service as eligibility period pointed out the list of Assistant Engineers filed as annexure VII to the petition and showed that apart from the present petitioner there were a number of other persons from serial No. 1 to 8 who had completed 7 years as Assistant Engineers but were not considered. The argument is that the non-consideration of these persons shows that the basis for considering the case of diploma holder Assistant Engineers must have been 7 years. I am afraid this argument begs the questions. The fact that some persons with 7 years service as Assistant Engineer were not considered because the period must have been 10 years. This is an argument to justify the wrong action taken by the respondent corporation. The Regulations which were in force on 1-3-1967 clearly negative the contention of the counsel for the Corporation. If there are some other persons who are also eligible with 7 years service, it is open to the corporation, if it so likes to consider their cases, but that is no reason to deny the consideration of the case of the petitioner. After all two wrongs do not make one right, I must, therefore, reject the contention of the counsel for the respondents that the diploma holder Assistant Engineers with 7 years service were not eligible for selection by the Internal Board when it met on 7-3-1967. The grievance, therefore, of the petitioner with regard to the non-consideration by the Internal Selection Board on 7-3-1967 for the post of the Executive Engineer has force and must be accepted.

    7. The next grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the appointment approved by the meeting of the Corporation on 24-3-1969 in pursuance of the Commissioner's letter dated 13-2-1969 as mentioned in Annexure 10 to the position of promotion of respondents 13 and 14 as Executive Engineer. The grievance of the petitioner was that his name had not been considered and therefore, the equality clause had been violated. The respondent-Corporation in reply had taken the stand that the petitioner's name was duly considered but he was not found fit. At the time of the argument Mr. Rameshwar Dial specifically gave up the plea in reply taken by the Corporation as he could not support the assertion that the name of the petitioner was considered. It is unfortunate that a reply should have been filed by the Corporation on solemn affirmation that the name of the petitioner was considered when in the point of fact it was not so considered. The least that one can say about such indifference shown in giving information to this court is to express one's regret that greater attention should not have been paid in placing the facts before the courts. Even then, however, the petitioner cannot succeed on this grievance because it is apparent that by 17-10-1967 the eligibility in the case of diploma holder Assistant Engineers has been raised as per Rules to 10 years of service. The petitioner who had started working as Assistant Engineer in April, 1959 had not completed 10 years by the time when the Internal Selection Board met on 23-5-1968 and recommended respondents 13 and 14 and which were later on accepted by the Corporation on 24-3-1969. The grievance of the petitioner with regard to the appointments made in 1969 has no force and must be rejected.

    8. Mr. Rameshwar Dial, counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary-objection that as the petitioner is challenging the promotions made in 1963 and 1967 the present petition is greatly belated and should be rejected on this ground alone. The petitioner has in his rejoinder explained that when in 1963 he was not considered he took up the matter with the respondent-corporation and also submitted his representation in 1965. In 1966 according to the petitioner the Corporation itself recommended the cases of the diploma holder Assistant Engineers for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and he, therefor, thought it better to await the result. According to him when the corporation decided that the diploma holder Assistant Engineers with 10 years service alone should be considered he filed a writ petition in the High Court in 1967 which was, however, withdrawn. But he filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court and the same was admitted. But this writ petition was also withdrawn in 1969. About this same time a writ petition by Shri O.P Gupta (CW 1459/1967 out of which L.P.A 120/71 had arisen) a diploma holder like the petitioner was admitted by the High Court and the petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition.

    9. The question of delay was also raised before the L.P.A bench. There also the petitioner had filed a writ in 1967 and was challenging the promotions made in 1963 The learned single judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay. This finding of the learned single judge was reverted. The Division Bench which noticed that the promotions which were recommended in 1963 were ad hoc and were for a period of less than one year for until regular appointments were made in accordance with the Rules which were in the process of formulation and realization. In these circumstances it was not necessary for the petitioner to file a writ petition in the court challenging this ad hoc appointments immediately they became elective and the petitioner could well have believed that his omission from consideration would be rectified as soon as the Rules were finalized in consultation of the commission. The bench has also noticed that the Corporation itself was trying to persuade from 1964 onward the commission that the cases of the diploma holder Assistant Engineers be also approved and the period of eligibility be made 7 years. In these circumstances it was observed by the bench that it was unable to hold that the petitioner was guilty of unreasonable delay or to be disentitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. I can see no distinction between the facts on which the plea of delay was negatived by the bench in O.P Gupta's case and the facts before me. The petitioner here as well as in L.P.A are diploma holder Assistant Engineers. The seniority list annexure VII shows the petitioned in the L.P.A at No. 1 and the petitioner before me at No. 3. The petitioner must have been aware that Shri O.P Gupta was agitating the claim of diploma holder Assistant Engineers for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. He could well imagine that if Shri O.P Gupta gets any relief, the same would be available to him also as apparently their cases were more or less similar. The petitioner ??? moved this court and the Supreme Court. In these circumstances it does not seem to be a case where the petitioner should be denied his relief on the ground of delay. Moreover in pursuance of the decision of the bench the Corporation has been directed to consider the case of Shri O.P Gupta for appointmen has Executive Engineer which was made in 1963 and 1967. As the matter has to be in any case reopened in pursuance of the bench decision it is another reason why the petitioner should be denied the right to be also considered on the technical plea of delay. This plea of the respondent, therefore, fails.

    10. The result is that this writ petition is partly allowed for the years 1963 and 1967 in the same terms as was allowed by the bench in L.P.A 120/71 namely ??? the corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Executive Engineer as at January 1, 1964 and if found fit, to treat him fit promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis on the same terms as of the other Assistant Engineers promoted as on this date and thereafter to treat him in the same way as those promoted Assistant Engineers have been treated. In the event of the petitioner not being found fit for promotion with effect from 1-1-1964, a writ is also issued to the respondent Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner at on 7-3-1967 and if found fit to treat him as promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis and on the same terms as of other Assistant Engineers promoted as on this date and thereafter to treat him in the same way as those promoted Assistant Engineers have been treated. The challenge, however, made to promotions of 1966 and 1969 fails and is rejected. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. As here is divided success/1 would leave the patties to bear their own costs.

    11. Petition allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    R.L Gupta (Petitioner) v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi Etc. (S).
    (Dec 14, 1972)