RAJENDER PRASAD AND ORS. vs NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4863/2019
Date of decision: 22.03.2024

RAJENDER PRASAD AND ORS. ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Surinder Kumar Bhasin, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advs.

versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ….. Respondent
Through: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Adv.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in O.A. 3224/2016. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the petitioners’ challenge to the abolishment of the 5% quota earlier reserved for Enquiry Attendants and Road Inspectors for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The learned Tribunal has however, quashed the decision of the respondent to seek recovery of the additional payments made to the petitioner on account of the erroneous implementation of the time bound promotion scheme. The petitioners also assail the order dated 16.01.2019 vide which their review application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order in so far as it rejects the petitioners’ prayer for being granted the benefit of reservation for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), is wholly perverse. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent having introduced on 28.10.1986, a 5% reservation for Enquiry Attendants and Road Inspectors for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), the said reservation could not be subsequently withdrawn. He submits that as a result of this reservation, the petitioner, who joined the corporation in 1974, is being discriminated against as all similarly situated Enquiry Attendants, who were senior to the petitioners have been promoted as Junior Engineer (Civil), only as a result of this reservation.
3. He submits that the learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that on account of withdrawal of this benefit of 5% reservation for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), granted pursuant to the circular dated 28.10.1986, the right which had accrued in favour of the petitioners on account of this circular has been withdrawn. He contends that such a vested right which has already accrued in favour of the petitioners could not have been withdrawn without granting them the benefit of this reservation, which benefit had been extended to all their seniors. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside to this extent.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the withdrawal of this reservation was necessitated after it was realised that the posts of Enquiry Attendant and Road Inspector had wrongly been treated as a technical cadre. Furthermore, this change was also necessitated on account of introduction of a time bound promotion scheme and, therefore, contends that there was no infirmity in the decision of the respondent to withdraw reservation for the post of Enquiry Attendant and Road Inspector. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find absolutely no merit in the present petition. As noted hereinabove, the only plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this reservation of 5% for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) granted to the Enquiry Attendants and Road Inspectors vide circular dated 28.10.1986 could not have been withdrawn especially when the benefit of this reservation was granted to their seniors, who had earned promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) only on account of this reservation.
Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, urged that the withdrawal of this reservation was found necessary as it was realised that the posts of Enquiry Attendant and Road Inspector could not be treated as being a part of the technical cadre as also on account of a introduction of a newly introduced time bound promotion scheme.
6. From these submissions made at the bar, it is the respondents’ case that after realising that the post of Enquiry Attendants or Road Inspectors could not be treated as a part of the technical cadre, a decision was taken to withdraw the benefit of 5% reservation for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). We are unable to find any infirmity with this decision of the respondent. Once the respondents have explained the reasons as to why this reservation was withdrawn, it is not for this Court to interfere with this decision, which is purely a policy decision.
7. Furthermore, the circular granting reservation to Enquiry Attendants, for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) was introduced only 12 years after the petitioners had joined service. It can, therefore, not be said that the service conditions as existing at the time of their joining service had been altered to their disadvantage. Even otherwise, the withdrawal of this reservation for promotion would, at best qualify as a change in the promotion criteria, which it is trite law, the employer is always entitled to change except when the selection process for promotion has already started. No employee has a right to get promotion; his only right is to be considered for promotion as per the policy existing on the date of his consideration.
8. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision in Hardev Singh vs. Union of India (2011) 10 SC 121, relevant extracts whereof as contained in para nos. 25 and 26 read as under:
25. In our opinion, it is always open to an employer to change its policy in relation to giving promotion to the employees. This Court would normally not interfere in such policy decisions. We would like to quote the decision of this Court in Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana [(1999) 3 SCC 696 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 824] where this Court had held in para 4 of the judgment that: (SCC p. 699)
“4. … When a policy has been declared by the State as to the manner of filling up the post and that policy is declared in terms of rules and instructions issued to the Public Service Commission from time to time and so long as these instructions are not contrary to the rules, the respondents ought to follow the same.”
26. Similarly, in Balco Employees’ Union v. Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC 333] it has been held that a court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. It is not within the domain of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no infirmity with the impugned order. The writ petition, being meritless, is accordingly, dismissed.

REKHA PALLI
(JUDGE)

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
(JUDGE)

MARCH 22, 2024
al

W.P.(C) 4863/2019 Page 1 of 5