JUDGEMENT
RITU BAHRI,J. -
(1.)This judgment will dispose of CWP Nos.22873, 6101 of 2010,
16745, 16751 and 19626 of 2015 together as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the petitions. For reference, facts are being taken
from CWP No.22873 of 2010.
The petitioners are seeking quashing of the orders dated 26.02.2005, 09.03.2015, 10.03.2015 & 11.03.2015 (Annexures P -25 & 26),
collectively), terminating their services without issuing any show cause
notice and opportunity of hearing.
(2.)Pursuant to a selection process, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Lineman/Shift Attendants in the respondent -Nigam and had been
working from 1993 to 1996. The selection made in the year 1992 was
quashed by this Court being faulty and the said decision was upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners who were
appointed in 1993 were terminated by passing similar order on 23.09.1997.
Experience certificates dated 22.05.1997 and 26.07.1997 were issued to
those persons, who had worked as Assistant Lineman/Shift Attendant w.e.f.
16.04.1993 to 22.09.1997 in the respondent -Nigam. Thereafter, vide advertisement dated 04.03.1996 (Annexure P -5) the respondent -Nigam
(erstwhile HSEB) advertised 2056 posts of Assistant Lineman and 556 posts
of Shift Attendant and all those persons, who were appointed as Assistant
Lineman or Shift Attendant in the year 1992, were given liberty to appear in
the test without applying for the said posts again. Written test was
conducted on 05.05.1996 at Circle level and the result was declared on
23.09.1997. This selection was also challenged by way of CWP Nos. 15558, 16278, 17812 of 1997, which were allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 03.12.2008 (Annexure P -7) on the limited ground that the reserved
category candidates, who had obtained more marks than the general
category candidates, may be selected and offer appointments in the general
category and the remaining vacancies of the reserved category may be filled
up by offering appointment to 336 reserved category candidates for the post
of Assistant Lineman and 75 reserved category candidates for the post of
Shift Attendant. In the said judgment is has been further held as under: -
"........It is further clarified that any such candidates who are appointed as a result of this exercise would not be entitled to receive any back -wages but would be entitled to all other consequential benefits. In view of the admitted fact about the existence of vacancies, I further hold that it would not be in the interest of justice to displace those general category candidates who may have been given appointments because of the illegal ouster of reserved category candidates since they have now been in service for the last 11 years and no fault can be found with them."
(3.)In the process of implementing the judgment dated 03.12.2008 (Annexure P -7), a fresh merit list was declared in the year 2009, which is
subject matter of the present petition(s).
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.