DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD AND ANR. vs MR. RAJENDER SINGH
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: March 22, 2024
CM APPLs. 18138/2024, 18139/2024 & REVIEW PET. 113/2024
IN
+ W.P.(C) 11247/2017
(2) DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION AND ANR.
….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Adv.
versus
MR. RAJENDER SINGH
….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon,
Ms. Kanika Rathore and
Ms. Prerna Tandon, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HONBLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 18139/2024 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 18138/2024 (for delay)
This is an application filed by the review petitioner / applicant seeking condonation of 97 days delay in filing the review petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 97 days in filing the review petition is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 113/2024
1. This is a review petition filed by the respondent seeking review of order dated October 13, 2023 passed by this Court, whereby this Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the DMRC / petitioners herein challenging the order dated April 8, 2016 in Original Application No.1923/2013 (OA, for short) and order dated August 10, 2017 in Review Application No.138/2016 (RA, for short) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short) allowing the OA filed by the respondent herein and dismissing the RA filed by the petitioners herein, by stating as under:
17. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent would submit, the record reveals that there were two vacancies of ST category which have been filled from the shadow panel. He by drawing analogy that as per the record, 47 vacancies of the ST category were not filled but later on only 45 vacancies of the ST category were advertised. Hence, in that sense, two vacancies have been filled by the petitioners.
18. That apart, Mr. Singh would also submit that the shadow panel having been created was required to be operated by the petitioners and they could not have scrapped and resorted to fresh recruitment process.
We are not impressed by the submission made by Mr. Singh for the simple reason that the decision which is annexed along with the affidavit of April 3, 2023 at page 13 clearly depict that the Managing Director deciding as under:
Discussed with ED/HR- The shadow panel candidates will not measure upto our expected standards. DMRC must have the best of candidates on our rolls. We may assess our total requirement and have a further recruitment for the total number.
-/sd/- 25/6
19. It is an undisputed case that a fresh advertisement was issued in the month of July 2010. On a pointed query from the Court to the respondent, who is also present in person, whether any person has been appointed from the shadow panel, no reply is forthcoming, except reiterating the plea advanced by Mr. Singh which we have recorded in paragraph 17 above.
20. We note that the petitioners have, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit of April 3, 2023, stated that the shadow panel was not operated in any categories.
21. If that be so, the decision of the Competent Authority / Managing Director not to operate the shadow panel cannot be faulted.
22. The order dated April 8, 2016 of the Tribunal directing the petitioners to consider the candidature of the respondent from the stage of medical examination and issue him the offer of appointment to the post of SC/TO is clearly untenable and the same is liable to be set aside and we order so.
23. In view of our above conclusion, the RA filed by the petitioners herein which was dismissed by the Tribunal only on the ground that the scope of review is very limited and the Tribunal cannot act as an Appellate Court is also set aside.
24. The writ petition is disposed of as allowed. No costs.
2. The grounds on which the review is being sought have been perused by us. In effect, the respondent is challenging the order dated October 13, 2023, on the merits of the conclusion drawn by this Court. The respondent is claiming appointment in terms of the recruitment initiated in the year 2009. The above paragraphs as reproduced reveals that it was decided by the Competent Authority, that the shadow panel / waiting list from which the respondent is seeking appointment, need not be operated as the empanelled candidates will not measure up to the petitioners expected standard. Hence, it was decided to initiate a fresh recruitment process and the same was done by way of a fresh advertisement in July 2010. It was basically for this reason that this Court has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated April 8, 2016 and also set aside the order in the RA.
3. We do not see any ground as contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been urged to seek review of the order dated October 13, 2023 passed by this Court. In fact, the grounds raised is an attempt to reargue the matter on merit.
4. The review petition is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MARCH 22, 2024/aky
REVIEW PET. 113/2024 in W.P.(C) 11247/2017 Page 4