A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna issued notice on an appeal filed by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) against a decision of the Delhi High Court order which had refused to interfere with a decision of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in favour of the applicant-respondent.
The Court also stayed the Delhi High Court order.
It was the case of the DJB that the respondent applied for appointment on compassionate ground on March 23, 2010 claiming to be an Arts graduate though she had not completed graduation at the time of making the application.
The officials of DJB, therefore, made changes in the application by cutting ‘Arts Graduate’ and replacing it with ‘XII pass’.
The applicant was therefore appointed as Assistant Meter Reader instead of Lower Division Clerk (LDC).
This was challenged before the CAT which ruled in favour of the applicant.
The DJB then moved the High Court in appeal. The counsel for the Delhi Jal Board submitted before the High Court that on the date when the applicant applied for compassionate appointment, she was not an Arts graduate and did not have even the provisional graduation certificate available to her which was issued subsequently. Hence, she could not have been considered for appointment as LDC.
However, this argument of the petitioner was rejected by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Amit Bansal, which had observed that:
“In the entirety of the circumstances aforesaid, considering the delay on the part of the petitioner DJB and considering that the case relates to compassionate appointment and CAT vide the impugned order has already directed the petitioner DJB to consider the case of the respondent/her daughter, we do not find this to be a fit case to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
This prompted the DJB to approach the Supreme Court.
The counsel for DJB submitted that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds was made on March 23, 2010 and on that day the applicant had not completed her graduation and she acquired the graduation qualification subsequently.
It was their contention that the qualification on the date of the application for appointment on compassionate grounds is what needs to be considered and consequently, the applicant was not eligible for appointment as LDC.
The Court issued notice returnable on February 21 while staying the High Court judgment.
Advocate-on-Record Ajay Vikram Singh, advocates Priyanka Singh and Chandra Shekhar appeared for the appellant.
Source: Barandbench
