Order
1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 5-9-2011 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Renu v. District & Sessions Judge LPA No. 726 of 2011, declining to issue any interim directions in an intra-court appeal against the order dated 30-8-2011 passed by a learned Single Judge in Renu v. District and Sessions Judge WP (C) No. 6332 of 2011. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition, wherein the petitioners herein had sought a direction to the District Judge to permit them to join as Process Servers/Safai Karamcharis, in furtherance of letters of appointment, dated 23-2-2011, received by them. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had observed that the said appointments having been kept in abeyance under the directions of the Chief Justice of the High Court for administrative reasons and the period of 89 days for which these ad hoc appointments had been made, being over, there was no occasion for issuing directions for enforcement of the said letters of appointment.
2. When the petition came up for motion hearing, taking cognizance of perpetual complaints regarding irregularities in the recruitments in the subordinate courts throughout the country, in order to explore the feasibility of centralising these recruitments and to make them transparent and transferable, we had directed (2014) 14 SCC 68 issuance of notice to all the High Courts to elicit their viewpoint on these issues. Response from several High Courts has since been received. For consideration of the aforesaid larger issue, we have already directed listing of this case after the ensuing summer vacation.
3. However, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the High Court and the District Judge, that since there is an acute shortage of Class IV staff, this Court may issue directions in the case, so that the vacancies are filled up at the earliest. Accordingly, we decided to take up the case pertaining to recruitment in the subordinate courts in Delhi.
4. On 23-9-2011 (2014) 14 SCC 68 while issuing notice, it was directed that out of approximately 30 vacancies, notified vide advertisement dated 11-7-2011, for which interviews were held, 9 vacancies shall not be filled up without the leave of this Court. During the course of one of the hearings, the learned counsel for the petitioners had vehemently contended that as per the information obtained by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005, even in the subsequent recruitments, there were serious irregularities and favouritism and thus, before adjudicating the right of the petitioners to the posts for which they were selected, this Court must also look into the manner and the procedure adopted in subsequent appointments.
5. Having regard to the serious allegations levelled by the learned counsel, we decided to expand the scope of this petition in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and directed production of the entire record relating to recruitments to Group ‘D’ posts, particularly pursuant to the public advertisement issued on 11-7-2011. We had also requested the learned counsel for the High Court and the District Judge, to examine the records and report as to whether a proper and fair procedure had been adopted for evaluating the candidates.
6. It is stated that the entire record has been brought to the Court in a sealed cover. At the outset, it is submitted by Mr A.D.N Rao, learned counsel appearing for the High Court, that having meticulously inspected the records pertaining to the issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners in this petition personally, which admittedly had been issued without any advertisement or interviews, he is not in a position to convince this Court that even subsequent selections/appointments on 20-5-2011 as also the ones pursuant to the advertisement dated 11-7-2011 were fair and above board. He candidly admits that in the absence of any recruitment rules, some broad criteria was laid down for the guidance of the selection committees but it is not clear from the record as to what procedure was actually adopted by the committees for awarding marks to the candidates. In the light of the submissions, we deem it unnecessary to peruse the records, though the learned counsel for the petitioners insists that in order to gauge the amount of favouritism, we must go through the record.
7. Tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, we have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid selections/appointments cannot be sustained. Adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and we shall be failing in our duty, if we overlook admitted irregularities in the selections/appointments brought to our notice, merely on the ground that the selections in question are only for Group ‘D’ posts. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners may be permitted to join and work for at least 89 days, the period for which they were appointed. It is trite law that unless an aggrieved party has an enforceable legal right under a statute or rule, a mandamus cannot be issued to an authority to do something. It is hard to believe that the petitioners were not aware of the manner in which they were selected and appointed within a span of a few days (without any advertisement or interview). Their appointments being ex facie illegal, issuance of appointment letters did not confer any right on them. In our opinion therefore, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the petitioners' writ petition.
8. Consequently, in order to render complete justice, we quash all selections/appointments made for Group ‘D’ posts of the subordinate staff by the office of the District Judge I and Sessions Judge, Delhi or by the Administrative Civil Judge (Central) on 23-2-2011; 20-5-2011 and pursuant to the advertisement dated 11-7-2011, except those appointments which were made on compassionate grounds or where the selected candidates had actually joined before we took cognizance of this case i.e 13-9-2011. We clarify that, appointments to Group ‘D’ posts made prior to 23-2-2011, unless otherwise subjudice, shall not be reopened on the basis of our observations in this order.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the High Court and the District Judge, submit that although the High Court has already framed recruitment rules, namely, the Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 (for short “the 2012 Rules”), the same are yet to be notified by the Central Government. The learned counsel pray that in view of an acute shortage of Group ‘D’ employees, the authorities concerned may be permitted to fill up the existing vacancies as per the procedure laid down in the 2012 Rules. We accede to the prayer and direct that fresh recruitment process for all the vacancies for Group ‘D’ posts may be initiated forthwith. Pending notification of the 2012 Rules, fresh recruitments shall be strictly in accordance with the said rules. We understand that in the 2012 Rules, no procedure has been prescribed for shortlisting the applicants. It will, therefore, be advisable and expedient to subject the applicants to an objective test for the said purpose, more so, when a large number of applications for these posts are likely to be received. This exercise may also minimise the scope for favouritism. We further direct that all those who had either received appointment letters or had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 11-7-2011, will be permitted to participate on their applying afresh and if any one of them is found to have become age barred, as a one-time measure, they will be given appropriate relaxation in the condition of age. All other modalities in this regard shall be worked out by the appointing authority, as defined in the 2012 Rules.