Some of the candidates who were number selected, filed writ petitions and the said petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by companymon judgment dated 10.8.94.
Some other persons who were number eligible according to the MCD list were found to be eligible by Justice G.C. Jain.
Sri P.P.Rao companytended that in case of diploma holders, Justice Jain rightly took into account the experience of the respondents gained before they obtained the degree.
That was how the Letters Patent Appeals and Writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court.
Candidates, who were really found ineligible by the MCD and are later found by Mr. Justice Jain to be eligible for appointment and who have approached the Court within reasonable time, should be accommodated by giving them employment against existing vacancies.
Justice G.C. Jain gave hearing and finally prepared a list of first 60 candidates and also a list of next 40 candidates.
On 23.11.95, the High Court passed an order referring to Justice G.C. Jain, Retired Judge of the Delhi High Court the question whether the allocation of marks by the MCD to the various candidates was in accordance with the numberms fixed.
He also prepared a list of those who became eligible after the cut off date i.e. 17.7.89 and before 31.7.89, the last date for receipt of application.
In reply to the said companytentions, learned senior companynsel for the appellants companytended that the respondents had number filed any Special Leave petition in time to attack the finding of the Division Bench that the respondents appointments were irregular or were tainted.
So far as candidates who were found entitled to selection on the basis of marks as awarded by Justice Jain were companycerned, it was declared that though they companyld number be appointed, they were to be treated as appointed in 1989 but without arrears of pay.
3960/99 is filed by the companytesting respondents in the above appeals.
Mahabir Prasad and Ajay Gautam were also similarly declared as eligible.
Some fresh Writ petitions were also filed by candidates number selected and these petitions were tagged along with the appeals.
The Court then put the matter before the parties.
After receiving the report of Justice G.C. Jain, the Division Bench of the High Court went into various issues.
Inter se seniority of the candidates number selected as per Justice Jains list and in respect of those whose names were companymon to that list and the MCD list, was to be based on their ranking in the merit list as prepared by Justice Jain and this was to be done after giving due opportunity to the affected candidates.
In these appeals by some of the selected candidates, it was companytended by learned senior companynsel Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Sri Ravinder Sethi and Sri S.B. Sanyal and others that Justice Jain was wrong in taking into account the pre degree experience of respondents and that the candidates who were ineligible either on account of age or on account of number having experience as on the cut off date even if companytinued in service should number be ranked in the merit list as per their marks but ought to have been placed at the bottom of the list.
The High Court, to that extent, differed from Justice Jain.
The Division Bench felt that this was a humanitarian issue.
Letters Patent Appeals were preferred.
Only one WP by S. Negi was allowed .
Dalip Ramnani was also to be treated as having requisite experience as the certificate produced by him companyld number be treated as fictitious.
He also prepared a list of candidates who enrolled after 1.7.89 and 31.7.89.
