KRIPA NARAIN SHAHI AND ANR vs NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 08.02.2024
+ W.P.(C) 2193/2017
KRIPA NARAIN SHAHI AND ANR ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ….. Respondent
Through: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Standing Counsel for NDMC with Mr. Nishit Yogi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
O R D E R
% 08.02.2024
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
REVIEW PET. 399/2017
1. The present review petition filed by the petitioners seeks review of the order dated 10.03.2017 passed by this Court, vide which the writ petition assailing the order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. NO. 1448/2012 was dismissed.
2. We may at the outset note that the writ petition was filed assailing the order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal whereunder the claim of the petitioners for regularisation on the post of Lift Operator (Group C) was rejected. Vide order dated 10.03.2017 of which review is being sought, this Court rejected the petitioners claim inter alia on the ground that the petitioners did not possess the mandatory education qualification of Matriculation/Higher Secondary with ITI certificate in the trade of Electrician/Wireman from a recognized institution and were, therefore, not eligible for appointment to the post of Lift Operator.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as the order wrongly records that the petitioners did not possess the minimum educational qualification required for appointment to the post of Lift Operator, a Group C post. He submits that even though the order correctly records that the minimum educational qualification required for appointment to the said post is Matriculation/Higher Secondary with ITI certificate in the trade of Electrician/Wireman from a recognized institution, it erroneously records that the petitioners do not possess this qualification. By drawing our attention to the note-sheet dated 31.01.2012 signed by the Executive Engineer in the respondent department, he submits that it is the own case of the respondents that both petitioners hold the requisite ITI certificate in the trade of Electrician and are therefore, holding the necessary qualification for appointment as a Lift Operator. He, therefore, prays that the presumption on which the writ petition was dismissed, being factually incorrect, the order dated 10.03.2017 be reviewed and the writ petition be heard afresh on merits.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents, opposes the review petition by contending that the rejection of the petitioners claim for regularisation by this Court is not only premised on the ground of them not possessing the minimum educational qualification but also on various other grounds. She submits that the petitioners claim for regularisation was considered not only by the learned Tribunal at length as also by this Court but was found to be unmerited and therefore, contends that no useful purpose will be served in reopening the matter at this belated stage. Finally she submits that it is not clear whether the documents, on which the petitioners now rely in support of their plea that they fulfil the necessary educational qualification, were placed before the learned Tribunal. She, therefore, prays that the review petition be dismissed.
5. In order to appreciate the rival submissions of the parties, it would be first apposite to note hereinbelow the relevant extracts of the paragraph no.9 of the order dated 10.03.2017 of which review is being sought. The same reads as under-
9. Regular appointment to Group “C” posts can be only made through selection by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board. The Tribunal in the impugned order has recorded that the petitioners seek appointment to the post of Lift Operator, for which the Recruitment Rules prescribe the minimum educational qualification of Matric/Higher Secondary and technical qualification of ITI certificate in the trade of Electrician/Wireman from a recognized institution. The petitioners do not qualify and meet this qualification.
6. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid, it is evident that while dismissing the writ petition, this Court had proceeded on the basis that the petitioners did not fulfil the minimum educational qualification. Having perused the note-sheet dated 31.01.2012, signed by the Executive Engineer of the respondent as also the certificates filed along with the review petition, we are of the considered view that there is an apparent error on the face of the record and therefore, it is a fit case where we must exercise our power of review. Even though learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently urged that there were various other grounds on which the petition was dismissed, having perused the order dated 10.03.2017 in its entirety, we find that one of the fundamental grounds as to why the writ petition came to be dismissed was that the petitioners were not qualified for the post against which they were seeking regularisation.
7. Now that it is evident not only from the note-sheet but also from the certificates placed on record that the petitioners possess the said educational qualifications, it would be grave injustice to them if they are not granted an opportunity to re-argue the matter on merits. We have also considered the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that it is not clear whether these documents in support of petitioners contention that they hold the minimum educational qualification for the post of Lift Operator, but find no merit in the same. The review petition has been pending before this Court since 2017 and therefore, the respondents had enough time to verify the factual position. Having not done so, they have only themselves to blame. In any event, once the note-sheet signed by the Executive Engineer in itself records that the petitioners possess the necessary educational qualifications, we have no reason to doubt this claim of the petitioners that they hold an ITI certificate in Electrician Trade.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the review petition is allowed and the order dated 10.03.2017 is, accordingly, recalled by directing that the writ petition be listed for consideration on 04.04.2024.
9. It is, however, made clear that this order will not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the rival claims of the parties.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
(RAJNISH BHATNAGAR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 8, 2024
acm
W.P.(C) 2193/2017 Page 5 of 5