Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Government Of Nct Of Delhi vs Ravindra Singh on 12 September, 2022
Bench: M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. OF 2022
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.12474-12475/2019)
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RAVINDRA SINGH ….RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Leave granted.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28-08-2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP(C) No.2165/2015 as well as order dated 05-04-2019 in RP No. 365/2018 in WP(C) No. 2165/2015, the original respondents before the High Court/Government of NCT of Delhi and others have preferred the present appeals.
2. Though served, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent/original applicant.
3. Applications were invited for the post of Sub- Officer in Delhi Fire Service – Group `C’ post. The age prescribed for the post of Sub-Officer was not exceeding 27 years (relaxable in upper age limit for SC/ST - 5 years). The candidates belonging to OBC were entitled to Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SNEHA Date: 2022.09.16 three years age relaxation. The respondent herein applied 17:32:58 IST Reason: for the said post, however, he was not given the age contd..
- 2 -
relaxation of three years. Therefore, the respondent approached the Tribunal. It was the case of the respondent/original applicant that though he was found to be more meritorious than the last candidate selected from the OBC category, he has not been appointed. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application. However, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has allowed the writ petition by observing that in the advertisement, there was no mention of age relaxation with respect to OBC candidates. The High Court observed that the respondent, who belong to OBC ought to have been given the benefit of three years age relaxation. A review application was filed pointing out that as the respondent belong to outside OBC candidate and, therefore, as per the advertisement, he was not entitled to three years age relaxation. The High Court has rejected the review application observing that such a plea was not taken up earlier.
4. Having gone through the impugned Judgment and orders passed by the High Court and even having gone through the advertisement issued in the year 2009 which fell for consideration before the High Court, it was specifically mentioned that a candidate belonging to OBC is entitled to three years age relaxation. In the note, it is also specifically provided that “OBC candidates seeking benefit of reservation should submit OBC Certificate contd..
- 3 -
issued by the Competent Authority of Government of NCT of Delhi. All other OBC candidates with certificate issued from outside Delhi will be considered for the unreserved category only, if eligible otherwise”. Therefore, OBC candidates belonging to outside the Government of NCT of Delhi were considered in the unreserved category.
5. In that view of the matter, the respondent being OBC outside the Government of NCT of Delhi and as the condition mentioned in the advertisement was not under challenge, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of three years age relaxation and his case was to be considered in the unreserved category. Thereafter, when he was found to be over-age, it cannot be said he was wrongly denied the appointment. When it was pointed out by way of review application, the High Court has refused to consider the review application. The High Court ought to have considered the aforesaid aspect which goes to the root of the matter.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, both the appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in the Writ Petition as well as in the Review Application are hereby quashed and set aside.
Contd..
- 4 -
7. The present Appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
………………………………………J. [M.R. SHAH] ……………………………………J. [KRISHNA MURARI] NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 12474-12475/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-04-2019 in RP No. 365/2018 in WP(C) No. 2165/2015 and 28-08-2017 in WP(C) No. 2165/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAVINDRA SINGH Respondent(s) (IA No. 74764/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 12-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG Ms. Manjula Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv.
Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (signed order is placed on the file)