WP(C) No.8197/2005 Page 1 of 4 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) No.8197/2005 Date of Decision: December 07, 2009 LALTA PRASAD YADAV ..... Petitioner Through Mr. J.M.Bari, Advocate with Mr. K.S.Kadam, Advocate versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Anurag D. Mathur with Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. APS Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was denied promotion to the post of „Semi Professional Assistant‟ in the selection held on March 15, 2002 on the ground that he was neither a diploma holder, nor possessed a certificate in „Library Science‟ which is an essential qualification for promotion, while respondent No.4 Shri R.D.Mishra who too did not possess either a diploma or a certificate in „Library Science‟ was promoted to the post in question. The petitioner came to be promoted only in November, 2007 after he had obtained a certificate in Library Science. WP(C) No.8197/2005 Page 2 of 4 The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has drawn my attention to an order dated March 16, 2004 passed in an earlier writ-petition filed by the petitioner in which he had made a similar grievance. One of the pleas taken in that writ-petition was that it was not essential to possess either a diploma or a certificate in Library Science for promotion to the post of „Semi Professional Assistant‟. The plea so raised was not accepted and the writ-petition was consequently dismissed. Aggrieved by the order dated March 16, 2004, the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal and therein he took an additional plea that one Shri R.D.Mishra was promoted in relaxation of the „Rules‟ even though he too did not possess either a diploma or a certificate in Library Science. The said submission was disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. The Division Bench after noticing the rival submissions passed an order dated February 18, 2005 holding that, “from the perusal of the record, we find that no such prayer was made in the appeal by the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted. Counsel for the appellant says that she wishes to withdraw this L.P.A. with liberty to file appropriate proceedings. Liberty granted. Dismissed as withdrawn.” In view of the aforesaid order passed on February 18, 2005 granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings, the present writ-petition has been filed specifically alleging that Shri R.D.Mishra was promoted as Semi Professional Assistant in relaxation of the „Rules‟ and consequently praying that in parity with the case of Shri R.D.Mishra, the petitioner be promoted from the same date. It is further alleged that respondent No.3 Shri Jagdish WP(C) No.8197/2005 Page 3 of 4 Prasad Pandey though junior to the petitioner was also promoted overlooking his claim to the post. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that in so far as respondent No.4 Shri R.D.Mishra is concerned, he was working as Library Attendant much prior to December 31, 1972 and that the qualification of a diploma or a certificate in Library Science was not needed in the case of those Library Attendants who were in the employment of the College prior to December 31, 1972. According to the counsel, in the case of all such persons, it was sufficient if they were having either the qualification of Matric/Higher Secondary and Certificate in library science plus four years library experience or, Graduate with two years library experience or, Matric/Higher Secondary plus five years library experience. It is stated that Shri R.D.Mishra was a graduate with two years library experience and it was for that reason that he was promoted to the post of Semi Professional Assistant. In any case, it is further stated that Shri R.D.Mishra has since retired from service and, therefore, whether he possessed or did not possess the requisite qualification is not of any consequence, in so far as the present writ-petition is concerned. As regards respondent No.3 Shri Jagdish Prasad Pandey, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the mere fact that he was junior to the petitioner is no ground to find fault with his selection. The said Shri Jagdish Prasad Pandey, it is stated, not only possessed the requisite qualification but was otherwise also found fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee that met in March, 2002. WP(C) No.8197/2005 Page 4 of 4 The relevant „Rule‟, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for respondent No.2, is annexed as Annexure R-2 to the counter-affidavit. It lays down a degree in Arts/Science or Commerce and diploma/certificate in „Library Science‟ as an essential qualification for recruitment to the post of „Semi Professional Assistant‟. The stand of learned counsel for the respondent that Shri R.D.Mishra was promoted because the „Rule‟ exempted those persons who were in service of the College prior to and as on December 31, 1972 from the requirement of having a diploma or a certificate in Library Science, is not borne out from the „Rule‟. The exemption was applicable only for the purpose of granting revised pay-scale and did not enure for the benefit of promotion. However, as Shri R.D.Mishra has since retired from service, I do not propose to go into the question whether he was rightly or wrongly promoted to the post. In view of the „Rule‟ position which lays down diploma or a certificate in Library Science as an essential qualification and as admittedly, the petitioner did not possess that qualification in March, 2002 he cannot claim promotion from that date. He also cannot claim parity with Shri R.D.Mishra, assuming he was promoted in relaxation of the Rules, the reason being that one wrong will not make another right. As regards Shri Jagdish Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that he possessed the requisite qualification. No other point was urged. For the foregoing reasons, the writ-petition has no merit and is dismissed as such. REKHA SHARMA, J. DECEMBER 07, 2009 PC/ka