DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus SANDEEP KAUSHIK AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 03-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
v.
SANDEEP KAUSHIK AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4920-4921 of 2022)
AUGUST 03, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment / Recruitment – Of Drivers in
appellant-transport Corporation – High Court while holding the
entire recruitment process to be bad as the appointments were made
solely on the basis of marks allotted in the viva test, directed the
appellant-transport corporation to appoint respondent no.1 as
Driver with seniority as per his merit position without any back
wages – Plea of appellant–transport corporation before Supreme
Court that 14 years have passed from the date of the recruitment
and there are changed circumstances due to which it is not possible
now to actually reinstate/appoint respondent no.1 on the post of
driver – Held: On facts, as on today, no post of driver is available
– All the subsequent appointments are now being made on
contractual basis and through contractors – As on today, the age
of respondent No.1 would be approximately 49 years while the
retirement age of a driver is reported to be 55 years – If respondent
No.1 is to be appointed now as driver, he will have to clear the
driving test to drive the bus on the road – Considering the overall
facts and circumstances, at this stage, actual appointment of
respondent No.1 is not possible – However, with a view to do
substantial justice, respondent No.1 awarded lumpsum compensation
of Rs.7.5 lakhs in lieu of actual appointment with 6% interest from
September, 2013 onwards till the actual payment is made to
respondent no.1.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1. Considering the fact that the appointments were
made solely on the basis of the marks allotted in the viva test,
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,
insofar as holding the entire recruitment process bad, does not
call for any interference. [Para 5][851-D]
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 848
848
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
849
1.2. It is however pointed out that as on today, no post of
driver is available. All the subsequent appointments are now being
made on contractual basis and through contractors. As on today,
the age of the respondent No.1 would be approximately 49 years.
The retirement age of the driver is reported to be 55 years. If
respondent No.1 is to be appointed now as driver, he will have to
clear the driving test to drive the bus on the road. Considering
the overall facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, the
actual appointment of respondent No.1 is not possible. Therefore,
if respondent No.1 is awarded a lumpsum compensation in lieu of
actual appointment as a driver with reasonable interest, the same
can be said to be in larger interest and can be said to be doing
substantial justice. [Para 5][851-E-H]
2. The appellant-transport corporation shall pay a sum of
Rs.7.5 lakhs to respondent No.1 as compensation with 6 per cent
interest from September, 2013 onwards till the actual payment is
made. It will be open for the appellant to recover the same from
respondent No.2. However, the initial liability to pay the aforesaid
amount would be on the appellant. [Para 6][852-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4920-
4921 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2013 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.3510 of 2012 and Order dated
05.09.2014 in Review Petition No.195 of 2014 in W.P. (C) No.3510 of
2012.
Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv. for the Appellant.
Manish Bhardwaj, Piyush Sharma, Nachiketa Joshi, Shiv Mangal
Sharma, Om Prakash Shukla, Amit Sharma, G. S. Makker, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 13.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition No. 3510 of 2012 and the order dated 05.09.2014
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SANDEEP KAUSHIK
AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
passed in Review Petition No. 195 of 2014 in Writ Petition No. 3510 of
2012, the Delhi Transport Corporation has preferred the present appeals.
1.1 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to appoint the private
respondent herein – original writ petitioner in the writ petition namely,
Sandeep Kaushik as Driver with seniority as per his merit position without
any back wages.
2. Dr. Monika Gusain, lea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.