Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 670/2006
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: May 12, 2017
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: May 12, 2017
W.P.(C) 670/2006
JAGDISH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anshu Mahajan, Mr. Vikas Aggarwal & Mr. Karan Arora, Advocates
JAGDISH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anshu Mahajan, Mr. Vikas Aggarwal & Mr. Karan Arora, Advocates
VERSUS
INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Ratna Dwivedi Dhingra & Ms. Bhavna Dhami, Advocates for respondent
No.1 Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate for respondent-UOI
Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Ratna Dwivedi Dhingra & Ms. Bhavna Dhami, Advocates for respondent
No.1 Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate for respondent-UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
By way of this writ petition, a mandamus is sought to respondents to regularize services of petitioner on the post of Helper (Engineer). A large number of vacancies are said to be available with respondents.
According to petitioner, he was selected on the regular post of
Helper on 3rd December, 1990 after going through the selection process
2017:DHC:2556 and petitioner was kept in the panel along with selected candidates for regular appointment. It is the case of petitioner that vide letter of 3rd December, 1990, respondents had informed him that his name has been kept in the panel of regular appointment but despite the aforesaid communication, petitioner was not offered any regular employment though he made several representations.
At the hearing of this petition, counsel for petitioner candidly admits that copies of the representations made by him are not on record.
Attention of this court was drawn to a one page letter of 10th August, 2004 written by petitioner seeking appointment on regular basis on the post of Helper (Engineer) to the Regional Director, Indian Airlines
Limited (IAL), Northern Region (NR), but the fate of the said application/letter is not yet known. Since there is no specific averment qua petitioner’s letter of 10th August, 2004 in the present writ petition, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to relegate petitioner to make a proper and effective representation to respondent.
At this stage, counsel for respondents informs that the engineering department of respondent is hived off to another subsidiary of Air India i.e. Air India Engineering Services Ltd. (AIESL) and the representation has to be made to the said authority.
Counsel for petitioner submits that the appropriate representation would be made to Air India Engineering Services Ltd. (AIESL) within a week.
If it is so done, then the concerned authority shall decide the said representation in light of the vacancy position and applicable Circular, etc., within four weeks by passing a speaking order and the fate of representation be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter to enable the petitioner to have recourse to law, if need be.
With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 12, 2017 r
By way of this writ petition, a mandamus is sought to respondents to regularize services of petitioner on the post of Helper (Engineer). A large number of vacancies are said to be available with respondents.
According to petitioner, he was selected on the regular post of
Helper on 3rd December, 1990 after going through the selection process
2017:DHC:2556 and petitioner was kept in the panel along with selected candidates for regular appointment. It is the case of petitioner that vide letter of 3rd December, 1990, respondents had informed him that his name has been kept in the panel of regular appointment but despite the aforesaid communication, petitioner was not offered any regular employment though he made several representations.
At the hearing of this petition, counsel for petitioner candidly admits that copies of the representations made by him are not on record.
Attention of this court was drawn to a one page letter of 10th August, 2004 written by petitioner seeking appointment on regular basis on the post of Helper (Engineer) to the Regional Director, Indian Airlines
Limited (IAL), Northern Region (NR), but the fate of the said application/letter is not yet known. Since there is no specific averment qua petitioner’s letter of 10th August, 2004 in the present writ petition, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to relegate petitioner to make a proper and effective representation to respondent.
At this stage, counsel for respondents informs that the engineering department of respondent is hived off to another subsidiary of Air India i.e. Air India Engineering Services Ltd. (AIESL) and the representation has to be made to the said authority.
Counsel for petitioner submits that the appropriate representation would be made to Air India Engineering Services Ltd. (AIESL) within a week.
If it is so done, then the concerned authority shall decide the said representation in light of the vacancy position and applicable Circular, etc., within four weeks by passing a speaking order and the fate of representation be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter to enable the petitioner to have recourse to law, if need be.
With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 12, 2017 r