WP (C) 2371 of 2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2371/2010 % Date of Decision: 22.04.2010 Ram Kumar Singh & Anr. …. Petitioner Through Mr. Gulab Chandra, Advocate Versus Delhi Jal Board & Ors. …. Respondent Through Nemo 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 petitioners and nine other applicants had filed TA No. 788/2009 titled Sh. Ram Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors., praying, inter alia, for a direction to respondent No. 1 to amend the seniority list dated 26th March, 1993 and 27th July, 1999 and to give proper placements to them and to review the DPC of September, 1997 for regular promotion of Assistant Engineer ( C ) and to promote the petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 and nine other applicants from September, 1997 with proper placement in seniority list which petition has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench by WP (C) 2371 of 2010 Page 2 of 5 order dated 26th October, 2009, which is impugned only by the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in the present writ petition. The petitioners and other applicants challenged seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civil) appointed during the period 1972-1991 and later on up to the year 1999 contending that the seniority had to be fixed from the respective dates of appointment and seniority lists of 1993 & 1999, ex-facie, showed violation. Therefore, those seniority lists are to be declared as invalid and inconsequential and for redrafting the seniorities. Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that during April, 1982 there were backlog vacancies of Junior Engineers (Civil) meant for scheduled castes/scheduled tribes candidates and 20 candidates were selected after interview. Out of 20 candidates, 15 had joined up to May, 1982 and later on, consequent to fresh notification, 8 other persons belonging to scheduled castes only joined during 1982. According to the petitioners, there was general recruitment and 17 persons joined during the period 29th April, 1982 to 30th October, 1982. WP (C) 2371 of 2010 Page 3 of 5 The grievance of the petitioners is that the general candidates though secured appointment later on they have been shown en bloc seniors to the petitioners which is an anomaly apparent and which is to be corrected. Before the Tribunal, the petition was contested on behalf of the respondent no.1 contending, inter alia, that full details had not been furnished by the petitioners. It was contended that in respect of scheduled caste candidates only temporary vacancies were available initially which were filled and not the regular vacancies. The respondent further contended that there were 100 vacancies and the selection authorities had prepared a panel and had offered appointment to 30 general candidates and 21 scheduled caste candidates on 17th April, 1982. The select panel had placed SC candidates below unreserved category candidates. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the pleas and contentions noted that the seniority lists are in existence for over two decades, as the petitioners are challenging the seniority lists of 1993 and 1999 in 2003 and no plausible reason has been given for the delay except the plea by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a continuing cause of action. How it was continuing cause of action was not explained before the Tribunal nor any precedent relied on holding WP (C) 2371 of 2010 Page 4 of 5 that for the purpose of seniority, it will be continuous cause of action. Considering the averments made by the petitioner, the Tribunal inferred that no sufficient cause has been given for the considerable delay and relying on AIR 1974 SC 2271, the Tribunal held that finalized seniority lists are not to be upset after a long period of time as the alleged valid rights also become unenforceable on account of delay and laches. The Tribunal also held that the alleged irregularity in the seniority lists should have been challenged within proper time. It was also noted that on the basis of the seniority lists, which should have been challenged earlier, the petitioners were even promoted as Assistant Engineers and the promotion had been accepted by the petitioners on the basis of the seniority lists of 1993 and of 1999. It was held that therefore, it will be improper for the petitioners now to allege that the seniority lists of Junior Engineers, which is in existence for considerable number of years is liable to be set aside and is to be replaced with fresh seniority lists to be drawn by the respondent no.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any sufficient reason for not challenging the seniority lists of 1993 & of 1999 in 2003. It is not disputed that on the basis of the said seniority lists, the petitioners as Junior Engineers were promoted as Assistant Engineers and the seniority as Assistant Engineers has also been based on the seniority lists of 1993 & 1999 i.e the seniority lists of Junior WP (C) 2371 of 2010 Page 5 of 5 Engineers which had been accepted by the petitioners at the time of their promotion. In the circumstances, no sufficient reason has been disclosed by the petitioners explaining the delay on their part and in the circumstances, at this belated stage, it will not be appropriate to change the seniority lists of 1993 and 1999. The petitioners have failed to make out a case, in the circumstances, to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. This Court does not find any such perversity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 26th October, 2009 in TA 788/2009 which will require any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is without any merit and, it is therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. APRIL 22, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘rs’