Facts
The Delhi Jal Board (Respondent) issued Office Order No. 18 on February 25, 2025, directing Assistant Engineers (Civil), including both degree-holders and diploma-holders, to look after the charge of Executive Engineer (Civil).
Source reference: p.3Subsequently, on February 27, 2025, this order was held in abeyance.
Source reference: p.3A new Office Order No. 124 was issued on July 18, 2025, granting the look-after charge for Executive Engineer (Civil) only to 28 degree-holding officers, excluding the diploma-holding applicants.
Source reference: p.3The applicants submitted representations on July 24, 2025, and subsequent reminders, but received no response.
Source reference: p.4The applicants contend that 33⅓% of Executive Engineer posts are reserved for diploma-holders as per applicable Recruitment Rules and that they, as diploma-holder Assistant Engineers in relevant seniority positions, should have been considered for the look-after charge.
Source reference: p.4Issues
Whether the exclusion of diploma-holder Assistant Engineers from the look-after charge for Executive Engineer (Civil) through Office Order No. 124 dated July 18, 2025, despite an earlier order including them, violates applicable Recruitment Rules.
Source reference: p.3-4Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the pending representations of the applicants regarding their claim for the look-after charge of Executive Engineer (Civil).
Source reference: p.4Law Applied
The court referred to the applicable Recruitment Rules which reserve 33⅓% of Executive Engineer posts for diploma holders.
Source reference: p.4It also relied on the principle established in *H.C. Sharma and Ors v/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.* (1983) 3 Supreme Court of India Writ Petition No. 221/1979, which held that promotions must be made strictly in accordance with seniority and applicable rules.
Source reference: p.4Reasoning
The applicants, who are diploma-holder Assistant Engineers, were initially included in an office order dated February 25, 2025, for the look-after charge of Executive Engineer (Civil).
Source reference: p.3This order was later put in abeyance, and a subsequent order dated July 18, 2025, selectively granted the charge only to degree-holders, omitting the diploma-holders, including the applicants.
Source reference: p.3-4The applicants argue that this exclusion contradicts the Recruitment Rules, which earmark a significant portion (33⅓%) of Executive Engineer posts for diploma-holders and that their seniority should have been considered.
Source reference: p.4Citing *H.C. Sharma and Ors v/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.*, the applicants emphasized that promotions—or in this case, look-after charges—must adhere to seniority and rules.
Source reference: p.4Given that the applicants' representations concerning this grievance remained unanswered by Respondent No. 2, the court decided to direct the authority to consider and decide these representations.
Source reference: p.4-5Holding
The court did not delve into the merits of the case but directed Respondent No. 2 – The Director (A&P), Delhi Jal Board, to consider and issue a reasoned and speaking order on the applicants' pending representations within four weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order, in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and law.
The OA was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p.5Original Court PDF
Dhanish Kumar Kansal & Ors. v. Delhi Jal Board & Ors. [O.A. No. 762/2026, Item No. 75 (C-3)]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in