The legal case delves into the intricacies of a dispute concerning the appointment of a driver, where the Delhi Transport Corporation contests a High Court judgment. The court’s analysis emphasizes the current scenario, highlighting the challenges in reinstating the petitioner due to changed circumstances and the absence of driver positions. This summary focuses on the legal intricacies explored by the court, shedding light on the complexities of the recruitment process and the rationale behind the awarded compensation. The case delves into the nuances of administrative law and considerations regarding substantial justice.
Facts
- The Delhi Transport Corporation is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 13.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No 3510 of 2012.
- The Delhi Transport Corporation is also dissatisfied with the order dated 05.09.2014 passed in Review Petition No 195 of 2014 in Writ Petition No 3510 of 2012.
- As a result, the Delhi Transport Corporation has filed the present appeals.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Arguments
- The High Court directed the appellant to appoint the original writ petitioner as a Driver without back wages.
- The appellant claims there is no current driver position available for the petitioner to be reinstated.
- The recruitment process was handled by respondent No.2, with the appellant making appointments based on recommendations.
- A 14-year gap since the advertisement for driver positions was issued has led to changed circumstances.
- Current appointments for driver positions are contractual, and the retirement age is 55 years.
- The petitioner, currently around 49 years old, would need to clear a driving test for reinstatement.
- Respondent No.1 has been fighting for appointment since 2008/2009.
- High Court directed to appoint respondent No.1 without back wages.
- Appointments were made solely based on marks in the viva test.
- High Court held the entire recruitment process as bad.
- Question arises whether respondent No.1 should be appointed now after 14 years.
- Changed circumstances may make appointment now not possible.
- Original writ petitioner succeeded before the High Court.
- High Court observed that the recruitment process was flawed.
- Respondent No.1’s counsel asserts the High Court’s decision.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Admission Irregularities in Educational Institutions
Analysis
- Retirement age of the driver is 55 years, respondent No.1 is currently 49 years old.
- Actual appointment of respondent No.1 as driver not possible at this stage.
- Respondent No.1 would need to clear the driving test to drive the bus if appointed.
- No driver positions available as of now; all appointments are on a contractual basis through contractors.
Also Read: Land Compensation Enhancement Case Summary
Decision
- The appellant is directed to pay Rs.7.5 lakhs with 6% interest as compensation to the respondent.
- The payment should be made within eight weeks from today.
- The appeals succeed partially and the High Court’s judgment is modified accordingly.
- No costs are ordered in this case.
- Awarding a lump sum compensation is in the larger interest and serves substantial justice.
- A compensation of Rs.7.5 lakhs with 6% interest from September 2013 is deemed appropriate.
- The initial liability to pay lies with the appellant – DTC, who can recover the amount from respondent No.2.
Case Title: DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SANDEEP KAUSHIK (2022 INSC 789)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004920-004921 / 2022
