Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2274 (DEL)

DESH RAJ v. DELHI JAL BOARD

2007-09-14

Sanjiv Khanna

body2007
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ. ( 1 ) AS the issues, both factual and legal, raised in these appeals are identical and similar, therefore, we propose to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment and order. We may, at this stage, mention that the appellants herein had filed separate writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, which were disposed of by a common judgment and order, which is under challenge in these appeals. ( 2 ) THE appellants were initially appointed on ad hoc or daily wage basis. They were subsequently regularised on their respective posts, where they were appointed on ad hoc or daily wage basis. All the appellants were working as assistant Pump Drivers/fitters/sewer Cleaning Machine Driver etc. There is also no dispute to the fact that all the aforesaid posts are recognised as permanent posts in the Delhi Jal Board. The contention of the appellants is that they should be held to be entitled to work as Work Assistants in terms of the policy formulated by the Delhi Jal Board in the year 1992. The aforesaid contention did not find favour with the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petitions by recording detailed reasons for arriving at the said conclusions. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, these appeals are filed, on which we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The aforesaid posts, to which appellants were initially appointed and against which they were regualrised, are the posts of Pump Drivers/assistant Pump Drivers/fitters/sewer Cleaning Machine driver which are recognised and statutory posts under the recruitment rules of the respondent/erstwhile Water Supply and Sewerage Disposal Undertaking. Subsequently, Delhi Jal Board was created and services of the appellants were transferred to the Board and, therefore, the appellants are guided now by the delhi Jal Board Recruitment Rules. Under the said Rules also, the aforesaid posts, as also the post of Work Assistant, exist. According to the recruitment rules to the post of Work Assistant, the method of recruitment that is provided is by way of direct recruitment and not by promotion or by deputation. Under the said Rules also, the aforesaid posts, as also the post of Work Assistant, exist. According to the recruitment rules to the post of Work Assistant, the method of recruitment that is provided is by way of direct recruitment and not by promotion or by deputation. The contentions that were raised before us by the counsel for the appellants were that under the policy of Delhi Water Supply and Sewerage Board, 1992, the appellants were entitled to be appointed in the aforesaid capacity as Work assistants as they are eligible and also possess all the educational qualification for the said post. It was contended that as per the policy of the municipal Corporation of Delhi, the appellants were eligible and should be appointed to the post of Work Assistants. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid contentions were examined by us in the light of the records made available to us. Recruitment rules were framed under the provisions of section 98 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act, 1957 and notified on 4th november, 1982. The aforesaid recruitment rules, under which the services of the appellants are governed and recruitment to the post of Work Assistant is to be made, are now statutory in nature. Therefore, all appointments to be made to any of the posts governed by the said recruitment rules, would have to be done through the method of recruitment as prescribed therein. The appointment to the post of Work Assistant, in terms of the aforesaid rules, is to be made through the process of direct recruitment. So far the applicability of recruitment policy, 1992 of the respondent is concerned, the said issue was also raised before the learned single Judge, who has considered the same threadbare and has held that the said policy is not applicable as the same is in conflict with the provisions of the recruitment rules. We fully endorse and agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in that regard. If a policy/guideline is in direct conflict with the statutory rules, it is settled law that the statutory rule would always prevail. Therefore, the appellants cannot take help of the aforesaid policy. We fully endorse and agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in that regard. If a policy/guideline is in direct conflict with the statutory rules, it is settled law that the statutory rule would always prevail. Therefore, the appellants cannot take help of the aforesaid policy. The said policy/guideline restricts the scope of recruitment to only those working within the organization and in fact seeks to direct the board to consider appointment in the lowest rung (Work Assistants) from among those who have worked for a particular period of time or more within the organization. The said position is directly in conflict with the recruitment rules laying down the mode of recruitment to the posts of Work Assistants which provides that the method of recruitment to the said post shall have to be by direct recruitment. ( 5 ) IN that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the learned Single Judge. We are also of the considered opinion that the appellants cannot, as of right, seek for their promotion to the posts of work Assistants in derogation or in violation of the provisions of the recruitment rules. We hold that regularization to the posts of Work Assistants will have to be made as laid down under the recruitment rules. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants do not find favour with us. We accordingly reject all the appeals in terms of the aforesaid order.