Delhi Municipal Corporations Recruitment Dispute

In the recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the case regarding the recruitment process for Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector positions in Delhi Municipal Corporations has been concluded. The court’s decision has a significant impact on the recruitment regulations and procedures followed by the municipal bodies. Let’s delve into the details of this legal case and understand the implications of the judgment.


  • Candidates initially appointed as Lower Division Clerks and promoted to Upper Division Clerks/Head Clerks are appealing before the Court against an order by the High Court of Delhi.
  • The appeal is related to direct recruitment for the posts of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector.
  • The appeal was directed against an order issued on 1 September, 2016.
  • DPC has not been held accountable for promotions or exploring vacancies through transfer or deputation.
  • The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application challenging Advertisement No 3 of 2013.
  • Tribunal stated recruitment process is not unconstitutional but promotions should not be interfered with.
  • High Court found non-compliance with Recruitment Rules, stating vacancies should be filled by promotion, transfer, or deputation before advertisements are published.

Also Read: Interpretation of Mandatory Statutory Time Limits


  • Recruitment Regulations for the post of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector in North, South and East Delhi Municipal Corporations, 2013, require vacancies to be filled by promotion or direct recruitment.
  • Allegation made that direct recruitment cannot be done without first attempting promotion through the Departmental Promotion Committee.
  • Promotion must be attempted before resorting to direct recruitment for these posts.
  • Adherence to the Recruitment Regulations is necessary before considering direct recruitment.

Also Read: High Court Ruling on Financial Irregularities Case Involving Harshvardhan Singh Jadon and Yogendra Singh


  • Affidavits filed on behalf of North Delhi Municipal Corporation, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, and East Delhi Municipal Corporation provide details of vacant posts falling under the deputation quota.
  • Vacancies to be filled by promotion, deputation, or direct recruitment are in accordance with Recruitment Rules allocating 50% quota to each category.
  • Candidates cannot claim the right of appointment solely based on responding to an advertisement if they do not meet the specified criteria.
  • The Recruitment Rules were amended before the advertisement was issued in 2013, outlining the process of filling vacancies by promotion, deputation, or direct recruitment.
  • The seniority list of the feeder cadre is pending finalization due to ongoing legal proceedings before the Tribunal and High Court.
  • Appellants aspiring for direct recruitment have no automatic right to appointment merely based on responding to a past advertisement.
  • A candidate seeking appointment to a civil post does not have an indefeasible right to appointment just because their name appears in the merit list.
  • Mere inclusion in the merit list does not guarantee appointment.
  • The appearance of a candidate’s name in the merit list is not sufficient to claim a right to appointment.
  • The merit list is not conclusive of the right to appointment.
  • Appellants do not have the right to dispute the filling of posts by Municipal Bodies.
  • Posts can be filled through promotion or deputation as per Statutory Rules mandate.
  • If posts through promotion or deputation are not filled, direct recruitment can be considered.
  • Municipal Bodies have the discretion to fill vacant posts based on different recruitment methods.

Also Read: Challenging Legal Analysis in Acquittal Reversal


  • The present appeals were found to lack merit by the court
  • The appeals were dismissed as per the court decision
  • The court’s decision was in line with previous rulings


Case Number: C.A. No.-000136-000136 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *