Nirmala Devi W/o Late Sh. Dharampal vs Delhi Jal Board

1.0 The present O.A. has been filed by applicant to quash and set aside order dated 01.05.2012 whereby Ms. Preeti, daughter of the applicant appointed as PCAMR at Serial No. 197 vide letter dated 02.03.2017 whereby denied consideration her for the post of LDC as per her eligibility, arbitrarily, discriminatory and illegally and same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the applicant prayed that her daughter may provisionally be treated as L.D.C.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was given appointment on compassionate ground on 06.03.2017 as her father Sh. Dharampal expired on 28.02.2010. The claim of the applicant is that she is a graduate from School of Open Learning, Delhi University which has issued a provisional certificate 20.12.2010 and marksheet has also been annexed herein at Page 67. The brief grievance is that one official Sh. Ravi Verma has cut her educational qualification as 'Art Graduate' and wrote '10+2th Pass' in the application without her knowledge and pursuance thereto the applicant was offered for Group 'D' post with the department on compassionate ground whereas the department has recommended 401 candidates out of 486 candidates for the post of LDC. The claim of applicant is that she should have been accommodated to the post of LDC as she is having graduation qualification despite having vacancies, she has been offered Group 'D' post.

3.0 Notices were issued to respondents. Respondents in their reply have submitted that the department has conducted an enquiry and it was found that education qualification was mis-represented by cutting the original qualification of graduation Sh. Ravi Verma at Annexure A- 22 Page 230 as under:-

"On investigation, it has been observed that Ms. Preeti had not submitted the graduation certificates at the time of applying for appointment. Further, it has also been observed that Sh. Ravi himself struck off the word "Art Graduate" written in Column No. 19 (8) meant for eduation qualification in the compassionate ground application form of Ms. Preeti and in its place wrote "XII Passed".

The investigation has established that it was lapse on the part of Sh. Ravi, who himself struck off the word "Arts Graduate" in the application form and wrote "XII Passed" in its place, whereas, he should have asked the applicant to make any correction, if required in the application form. "

4.0 The department has further submitted therein that applicant's case was considered by Delhi Jal Board for appointment on compassionate ground after death of her father and the education qualification was mentioned in the application for the same as "XII Class" passed. No certificate in support of her "Art Graduate" was placed in her application form. They have further admitted that she has graduation certificate at the time of compassionate ground appointment and for the lapse of Sh. Ravi Verma. The Competent Authority has issued warning to him.

5.0 Lastly, department has submitted at Page 50 that once Mrs. Nirmala Devi accepting the post of PCAMR, Group D on the compassionate ground, she cannot considered for any other post and she has been informed for the same by the department also.

6.0 Heard both the parties at length and pursued record and appreciated the legal submission.

7.0 Learned counsel for the applicant has raised a question in this O.A. that whether applicant is entitled to appointment as LDC or Group 'D' post which was given to her erroneously? During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the Graduation Certificate which is annexed with this O.A. and marksheet thereto. Learned counsel for the applicant persistently argued that this graduation certificate was submitted by the applicant at the time of seeking appointment. But due to interpolation by Sh. Ravi Verma, the applicant's qualification has been shown as '10+2th pass' which is completely unacceptable. Learned counsel for applicant has drawn my attention to the judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Hiraman Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 1995 IILLJ 484 (1994) where the similar question has been dealt with by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad as under:-

"So far as the contention of the appellant that once the petitioner Karunesh Kumar Srivas-tava was entitled for appointment to Class III post and on account of any action on the part of the management in spite of the direction of the DIoS when he accepted the post of a Class IV employee under protest, if found at a later stage that he was entitled for his appointment as Class III employee, there will be no bar in granting the relief nor his claim can be said to be barred by principle of estoppels. Moreover after the death of any employee the family has to pass days in chill penury and beggars cannot bargain. Such acceptance is demand of circumstances, which cannot deprive a man of his legitimate claim."

In the above said judgement, the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held that there is no bar in granting the relief nor her claim can be said barred by principle of estoppels. The applicant infact is entitled for the higher post for example LDC post and she should have been offered the some very post because vacancies are there where due to mischief as done by some departmental official, her legitimate claim has been denied.

8.0 This Tribunal is of the view that the applicant should have been considered and offered an appointment as LDC after taking into consideration her education qualification i.e. BA Arts in view of the legal position cited herein above. The impugned order dated 02.05.2015 is hereby set aside and this Tribunal directs the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant to the post of LDC as discussed above, if she is otherwise suitable for the post. Accordingly, this O.A. is disposed with above directions.

9.0 This order shall be implemented within a period of 90 days. No order as to cost.