Delhi Planning Minister Atishi on Tuesday issued an order declaring that the directive from the Services and the L-G to rescind the non-official members of the (DDCD) Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi, is null and void.
The minister in her order dated July 2 stated: “The Services Order and the Hon ble LG’s Order suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction and are therefore non-est in law. Therefore, the undersigned is pleased to declare the Service Department’s order dated 27.06.2024 and the Hon ble LG’s Order as null and void and restore the status quo ante as prevailing on 26.06.2024.”
Atishi has also claimed that any action pursuant to the Services order or the LG’s order without the approval of the Minister (Planning) shall be deemed illegal, and shall make the erring officials liable for disciplinary action.
She has further said that the concerned non-official members of the DDC will continue in their roles despite the LG’s order.
The Minister has also said that in the DDCD such matters are solely under the jurisdiction of the Chief Minister, and added the prima facie it is observed that LG is not vested with any jurisdiction or authority to rescind the engagement of these non-official members.
Meanwhile, it was on June 27 that Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena had approved temporarily of dissolving the Delhi Dialogue and Development Commission (DDCD) and removal of its non-official members till a mechanism is developed for screening and selection of domain experts as its vice chairman and members.
“The whole exercise of creating the DDCD by the incumbent (Delhi) government was only to extend financial benefits and extend patronage to certain favoured political persons of partisan inclinations. Politically appointed persons holding these positions, were allowed to continue on these positions at the whims and fancies of the Chief Minister,” Saxena was quoted as saying by his office.
He had alleged that there was no screening through a transparent process, and huge salaries were paid from the public exchequer, which were incommensurate to the duties assigned.
“It is a blatant and clear case of nepotism and favouritism in utter disregard of all rules,” the L-G had said.