Policy for 1984 riots victims seeks preference, not employment: HC

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant relief to a woman who sought employment for families of the 1984 riots, saying the scheme only envisages that preference should be given during recruitment

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant relief to a woman who sought employment under a rehabilitation policy for the victim families of the 1984 riots, saying the central scheme only envisages that preference should be given during recruitment and does not make appointment mandatory in the absence of any hiring exercise.

Justice Yashwant Varma said that as and when any recruitment exercise is undertaken or initiated by the authorities, they would be bound to consider the candidature of the petitioner, whose appointment was rejected by the competent authority on the grounds that at present there was no special recruitment drive in place.

The court notes that since presently no appointment exercise has been initiated, the petitioner cannot claim an indefeasible right to be appointed under the respondents.

"In any case and as has been noted above, the policy itself only envisaged a preference being extended to eligible applicants in any recruitment exercise that may be undertaken.

"The court finds itself unable to read that provision of the policy as mandatorily requiring the respondents to appoint the petitioner, the court said in its order dated May 20.

In the petition, the petitioner sought consideration of her appointment in terms of the circular dated January 16, 2006, which spelt out a rehabilitation package to provide relief to the victims of the 1984 riots.

She contended that the authorities acted illegally in failing to offer her an appointment which was arbitrarily denied.

The court noted that amongst the various measures which were adopted in the policy, one was to provide preference in recruitment to children and family members of those who had died in those riots and that obligation continues even today.

As this court reads that Circular, it fails to construe or interpret the same as placing the respondents under an obligation to necessarily appoint children and family members of those who had succumbed during those riots.

"The policy essentially places the respondents under an obligation to accord preference to the victims during the course of any appointment exercise which may be undertaken. That obligation continues to bind the respondents even today, the court stated.

While the Court finds itself unable to grant the reliefs as prayed for,'it said.

The writ petition "along with pending application shall stand disposed of with the observation that as and when any recruitment exercise is undertaken or initiated by the respondents and the petitioner does apply in terms thereof and is otherwise found to be eligible, they would be bound to consider her candidature bearing in mind the provisions made in the Circular of 16 January 2006, it said.