Anish Kumar Pant And ORS. v. Delhi High Court And ANR.

$~54.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7292/2019 ANISH KUMAR PANT AND ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Rajesh Narang & Ms. Anupama Narang, Advocates.

versus DELHI HIGH COURT AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Viraj R. Datar & Mr. Nitish Chaudhary, Advocates for respondent No.1/ DHC.

Ms. Avnish Ahlawat & Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Advocates for respondent No.2/ GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

O R D E R

% 09.07.2019 C.M. No. 30311/2019 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 7292/2019 and C.M. No. 30310/2019 The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to seek quashing of the order dated 17.06.2019, whereby Hon'ble the Chief Justice has made certain appointments on temporary basis as Court Attendants in this Court. The petitioners also assail the orders dated 16.10.2018 and

17.11.2018, whereby the services of certain Data Entry Operators - who were working in this Court on contract basis, were regularised and certain persons were appointed as Junior Judicial Assistants in this Court. The petitioners, in effect, also seek a direction that like the aforesaid persons were appointed in the establishment of this Court, they too should be appointed.

The case of the petitioners is that though they were issued appointment orders as Process Servers on purely ad-hoc basis for a period of 89 days, or till regular appointments are made, way back in 2011, they have actually not been so appointed and permitted to join. The petitioners do not dispute the fact that they are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Renu & Ors. Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari & Anr., Civil Appeal No.979/2014 decided on 12.02.2014. On the one hand, the petitioners question the appointments made by this Court taken note of hereinabove on the premise that they are contrary to the aforesaid decision in Renu & Ors. (supra), while on the other hand, they seek negative equality. So far as the appointments made on the establishment of this Court are concerned, the petitioners have no locus standi to assail the same. In any case, this Court is seized of some of the appointments referred to above in other proceedings.

The petitioners have no vested right to seek the appointment as sought by them. As and when the establishment of the High Court advertises for vacancies for which the petitioners are eligible, in terms of the conditions that the respondents may lay down, it shall be open to the petitioners to make their applications and they shall be considered in terms of their eligibility and other conditions.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. VIPIN SANGHI, J RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J JULY 09, 2019 B.S. Rohella