RADHEY MOHAN  Vs UOI & ORS.

W.P. (C) 5838/2003 Page 1 of 3
$~S-12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P. (C) 5838/2003
RADHEY MOHAN …..Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.

Versus
UOI & ORS. …..Respondents
Through: Mr.Vishal Mittal, Advocate.

% Date of Decision: 12th January, 2021
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE M S. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN , J
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12: (Oral)
th
2. In the OA, the petitioner had impugned the order dated 20
November, 2002 passed by CAT dismissing the petitioner’s OA No.
472/2002.
th
December, 2001 whereby petitioner’s representations challenging the office
order dated 2- 1/2001-EW dated 06th
3. In the representation, the applicant had claimed that there were
anomalies/discrepancies in the office order dated 05 February, 2001 regarding promotion on
ad hoc basis in the grade of S.E(E) in P&T Building Works (Gr -A) service
had been disposed of by the department.
th February, 2001 as it
2021:DHC:128-DBW.P. (C) 5838/2003 Page 2 of 3
was based on wrong seniority list. Petitioner had also claimed ad hoc
appointme nt in the grade of Superintending Engineer (Electrical) in P&T
Building Works Grade A service.
4. A perusal of paper book reveals that the seniority list had been
prepared in pursuance to the directions given by the Bombay Bench of CAT
which had been up held by the Supreme Court in M.K. Shanmugam & Anr.
Vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No.5086/1994. Consequently, this
Court is of the view that the same cannot be interfered with in the present
proceedings .
5. At this stage, the petitioner who appears in per son, draws the attention
of this Court to the observation of the Supreme Court in M.K. Shanmugam
(supra ), wherein it has been held as under:-
“……..Therefore, we are of the view that conclusions reached by
the Tribunal appear to us to be correct and cal l for no
interference. However, we make it clear, as noticed earlier, that while amending the rules of recruitment in the 1984 all those who are already in service will be borne in mind in adjusting the
seniority amongst the promotes inter se and suitable
adjustments could be made and so far as the direct recruits are
concerned, their cases will go by their quota rule and the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard cannot be taken exception of.”

6. Upon a perusal of the aforesaid direction, we find that th e Apex Court
had given leeway to the respondents to amend the Recruitment Rules of
1984. However, in the present proceedings, there is neither any challenge
nor reliance upon the amended Recruitment Rules of 1994. Accordingly, the
aforesaid observation by the Apex Court offers no assistance to the
petitioner.
2021:DHC:128-DBW.P. (C) 5838/2003 Page 3 of 3
7. Further, i n the impugned order, the Tribunal has recorded
respondents’ concession that as and when petitioner reaches the seniority list
level, h e would be considered for Group-A post. Consequently , this Court is
of the view that no interference is called for with the impugned order .
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON, J
JANUARY 12, 2021
KA
2021:DHC:128-DB