W. P. (C.) No. 231 of 2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.231/2010 % Date of Decision: 15.01.2010 Sh.Adarsh Kumar …. Petitioner Through Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Versus M.C.D & Anr. …. Respondent Through Ms.Suparna Srivastava, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner, Adarsh Kumar has challenged the order dated 10th August, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in T.A No.343/2009 titled Adarsh Kumar v. MCD dismissing his petition seeking regularization/confirmation as Lift Operator with effect from 1st April, 1982 instead of as Electric Beldar. The petitioner has contended that he was initially working as Beldar on daily wage basis and he was regularized as Khalasi with effect from 1st April, 1982. According to him, from 1982 to 1985 he was made W. P. (C.) No. 231 of 2010 Page 2 of 3 to work on the post of Lift Operator on muster roll basis and he was shown as Lift Operator at serial No.17 in the seniority list issued on 3rd August, 2005 and his name had also figured at serial No.10 in the final list issued on 28th April, 2006. The claim of the petitioner was declined on the ground that regularization of the petitioner on the post of Lift Operator cannot be accepted as he did not possess requisite qualification for the post of Lift Operator at the time of regularization. Regarding the seniority list issued on 3rd August, 2005 and 28th April, 2006, it was noticed that the categories of different employees were mixed up leading to various conflicting seniority list which were withdrawn and subsequently a corrected Separate seniority list for each category was issued. The petitioner has not disputed that even after issuance of seniority list on 3rd August, 2005 and 28th April, 2006, the corrected seniority list was issued in which the name of the petitioner did not appear as a Lift Operator and his name had appeared at serial No.199 as Electric Beldar. Against the said seniority list the petitioner had not filed any objections. W. P. (C.) No. 231 of 2010 Page 3 of 3 In the facts and circumstances, therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner fulfills the requisite criterion for regularization as Lift Operator. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity so as to entail any interference by this Court. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. JANUARY 15, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘k’