Yogesh Kumar vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Other

L. Narasimha Reddy J

The applicants responded to an advertisement issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in the Delhi Administration. All of them were SC/ST

candidates. Their candidature was not considered on the ground that the certificates were not issued by the Delhi Administration.

The applicants filed Writ Petition(C) No.3732/2000 and on the basis of the Order dated 12.02.2001 passed therein, their cases were considered and they were appointed as Assistant Teachers, in the year 2001.

The applicants contend that persons similarly situated like them approached the Delhi High Court by filing a Writ Petition No.7688/1999 and in compliance with the directions issued therein, all of them were treated as having been appointed on 01.07.1999 and similar direction was not accorded to them. A representation, in this regard, is said to have been made by one of the applicants.

This OA is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to extend the benefit, similar to the one contained in order dated 18.01.2011 and for extending other consequential benefits such as fixation of seniority, promotion and MACP.

The respondents filed a counter affidavit objecting to the very maintainability of the OA and on merits also they stated their objections.

We heard Ms. Meenu Mainee, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri M.S. Reen and Shri Pradeep Kumar for Ms. Sangita Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.

The applicants are claiming the reliefs similar to the one that was granted to some of the Teachers through order dated 18.01.2011, on the basis of Order in WP(C) No.4284/1999. The applicants are not able to place the copy of the order in the Writ Petition before us. Added to that, in the relief granted to the applicants in the writ petition filed by them, no direction was issued for fixation of seniority from any date, anterior to the one, on which they were appointed.

At any rate, the occasion for the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants would arise if only a representation in this behalf is made. Though one of the applicants made representation, it is in a different context and several pleas were incorporated therein.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA, leaving it open to the applicants to make representation regarding the fixation of date of their appointment. In case such a representation is made within a period of four weeks from today, the respondents shall pass orders thereon within eight weeks, in accordance with law. We make it clear that if the applicants are found eligible to be extended any relief, that would adversely affect the interests of other employees, the affected persons shall be put on notice.

There shall be no order as to costs.