Shri Bhawani Singh v. Indian Council of Social Science Research & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 16 Dec 2013 · 2013:DHC:6453
Valmiki J. Mehta
W.P.(C) No. 5051/2000
2013:DHC:6453
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition for promotion to Assistant Director as the petitioner failed to prove fulfillment of the prescribed educational qualifications under the recruitment rules.

Full Text
Translation output
WPC 5051/2000
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) No. 5051/2000 16th December, 2013 SHRI BHAWANI SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amrit Pal S. Gambhir and Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocates.
VERSUS
INDIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT

1. By this writ petition, petitioner prays for the relief of being granted promotion to the post of Assistant Director in the respondent no.1organisation. Petitioner has been working from 9.10.1991 as a Research Assistant.

2. Petition itself specifies the recruitment rule for the post of Assistant Director and the same reads as under:- “1.Name of the post Assistant Director

2. Group V 2013:DHC:6453

3. No. of posts 7

4. Scale of Pay Rs.700-40-900-EB-40-1100-50-1300.

5. Age for direct recruitment. Minimum 21 Maximum 45

6. Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment. A master’s degree with 50% marks in any of the social sciences with two years teaching or research experiences, or a doctorate degree in any of the social sciences.

7. Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment will apply in the case of promotion. Age limit may be relaxed

8. Period of probation 2 years

9. Method of recruitment (whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation & percentage of vacancies to be filled by various methods). 50% Direct Recruitment 50% by promotion

10. Whether selection post, or nonselection post, if recruitment is by promotion Selection

11. In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer,grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer to be made. Persons with requisite qualifications and at least five years service as Research Assistant Grade II.

12. If a DPC exists, what is its composition. MS, AO, FA&CAO and two other persons nominated by Chairman who may designate one of them as Chairman of the Committee.

13. Composition of the Selection Committee in case of direct recruitment. MS, AO,FA & CAO and not more than five other persons nominated by the Chairman.

14. Remarks, if any -”

3,903 characters total

3. A reading of the aforesaid rule shows that qualification criteria is the same both for appointment by promotion and by direct recruitment. The person who seeks promotion must additionally have five years experience as a Research Assistant Grade-II.

4. So far as the experience of the petitioner is concerned, he would have experience of five years on 1996, however, the issue is whether petitioner has the qualification as mentioned in para-6 of the Recruitment Rules i.e Master’s degree with 50% marks in any of the social sciences with either two years experience of teaching or research experience, or a doctorate degree in any of the social sciences. The petition is conspicuously silent as to how the petitioner meets these qualifications. The respondent no.1 in the counter-affidavit in para 16(iv) has taken up a specific objection that petitioner does not meet the qualifications. No rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and therefore surely it must be because petitioner does not fulfill the qualifications. In fact, petitioner even in the writ petition itself should have mentioned that how as per the recruitment rules he meets the qualification criteria for being promoted to the post of Assistant Director, however, the petition is silent as to how the petitioner meets the qualification criteria. Therefore, even independent of the fact that whether or not a post exists, petitioner having failed to show before this Court that he has eligibility criteria, he cannot have a successful claim to the post of Assistant Director.

5. I may also state that the entitlement of the petitioner if not arisen earlier did arise on the promotion of one Mr. K.D.Gaur as an Assistant Director in October 1999, and though respondent no.1 contends that there is no vacant post, I need not go into this aspect in view of the fact that petitioner has failed to show as to how he has the qualifications for being appointed as an Assistant Director.

6. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

DECEMBER 16, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib