Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Praveen Rawat vs Dsssb on 15 October, 2025
1 M.A No. 34/2025 in O.A No. 1550/2024
Item 12 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
M.A No. 34/2025 in O.A. No. 1550/2024
With
M.A No. 1351/2024
Reserved on : 17.09.2025
Pronounced on : 15.10.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Praveen Rawat
Aged about 38 years,
S/o Sh. Gyan Chand Rawat
R/o P. n. 22, Bhagwati Nagar,
2nd Kartarpura Jaipur, Rajasthan-302006
Post: Pharmacist (Dispenser)
Post Code: 815/24
Group: C
2. Sumit Kumar
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Sh. Sohan Pal
R/o House No. A-8/629, Gali No.8, Near Shiv Mandir Amar
Colony East Gokalpur, Delhi-110094
Post: Pharmacist (Dispenser)
Post Code: 815/24
Group: C ...Applicants
(By Advocate (s) : Mr. Nikhil Pawar with Mr. Shakib Malik and Mr.
Shubham Bahl)
Versus
1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Chairman
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092
Email: [email protected]
2 M.A No. 34/2025 in O.A No. 1550/2024
Item 12 (C-3)
2. The Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
Government of NCT of Delhi
6, Raj Niwas Marg, Ludlow Castle,
Civil Lines, New Delhi 110054.
Email: [email protected]
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner Dr. SPM Civil Centre,
J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110002
Email ID: [email protected] ....Respondents
(By Advocate (s) : Ms. Anupama Bansal, Mr. Amit Yadav with Dr.
Monika Bhargava for R-1 and 2)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
M.A No. 1351/2024 :-
The instant M.A for joining together of parties in a single OA is allowed as both the applicants have a common cause of action and are seeking similar reliefs.
O.A No. 1550/2024 :-
The instant OA has been filed by the applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Set aside the impugned Vacancy Notice/Advertisement No. 06/2024 dated 05.03.2024 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to the extent the respondents have failed to grant 02 years age relaxation to the applicants herein, who are candidates seeking appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Dispenser) (Post Code: 815/24 ) in MCD;
(ii) Direct the respondents to grant 02 years age relaxation in the upper age limit to the applicants for appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Dispenser) (Post Code: 815/24 ) in MCD 3 M.A No. 34/2025 in O.A No. 1550/2024 Item 12 (C-3) and, thereafter, consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Dispenser) (Post Code: 815/24 ) in MCD in accordance with law;
(iii) Allow the present Original Application with costs in favor of the applicants; and
(iv) Issue any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in favor of the applicant."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicants is that the applicants who are aspirants for the post of Pharmacist (Dispenser) have challenged the impugned advertisement No. 06/2024 dated 05.03.2024 issued by the DSSSB. They are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not providing 2 years age relaxation to the candidates seeking appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Dispenser) bearing Post Code No. 815/24 in MCD which made them to serve a legal notice dated 12.04.2024 to the respondents but to no avail. Hence, the applicants are before this Tribunal for ventilation of their grievances.
3. The counsel of the applicants argued assiduously on the following grounds :-
"A. The last advertisement for direct recruitment on the post of Pharmacist (Dispenser) in MCD was issued by the respondents in the year 2014. It is submitted that for last 10 years no vacancies have been advertised for filling the unfilled vacancies of Pharmacist (Dispenser) in MCD. Consequently, the applicants are entitled to 10 years age relaxation in terms of law declared by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sachin & Ors. Vs. Central Reserve Police Force & 4 M.A No. 34/2025 in O.A No. 1550/2024 Item 12 (C-3) Ors., decided on 20.01.2023, MANU/DE/0713/2023. However, the applicants herein, as a one time measure are seeking age relaxation for only 02 years.
B. The applicants herein are entitled to age relaxation of 02 years as everything came to stand still situation owing to Covid-19 pandemic.
C. This Hon'ble Tribunal passed in OA No. 198/2024, vide Order dated 02.02.2024 titled Pinki Maurya & Ors. Vs. DSSSB & Ors., by way of interim relief had granted age relaxation and directed the respondents therein to consider the candidature of the applicants therein provisionally in order to enable them to participate in the selection process.
D. There are several vacancies in the MCD of Pharmacist (Dispenser) (Post Code: 815/24) in MCD which are lying vacant for last several years.
E. The applicants possess all the requisite qualification as well as experiences for appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Dispenser) (Post Code: 815/24) in MCD.
F. Several vacancies even in the year 2014 remained unfilled. It is submitted that the applicants have bonafide apprehension that there is acute shortage of qualified and experienced candidates for appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Dispenser). Consequently, the applicants are entitled to 02 years age relaxation in terms of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Syed Mehedi Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., WP (C) No. 1200/2016, decided on 02.07.2019.
G. The impugned Recruitment Rules, the respondents have sufficient powers to relax the requisite age relaxation. It is submitted that by not exercising power to relax the respondents have acted arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
H. The applicants herein do not have a job of permanent nature and, despite their best efforts, have not been able to procure any employment whatsoever. It is further submitted that the applicants had acquired the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Dispenser) (Post Code: 815/24) in MCD with the hope of appearing in the recruitment process for the same. But, however, because of illegal actions on the part of the respondents, the legitimate expectations of the applicants have been sheltered.
I. The work of Pharmacist (Dispenser) is of perennial nature and is continuing with the MCD.5 M.A No. 34/2025 in O.A No. 1550/2024
Item 12 (C-3) J. The impugned action on the part of the respondents is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, discriminatory, punitive, unreasonable, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of the principles of natural justice."
4. Per contra, the counsel of the respondent no.1 DSSSB argued that they have limited role in this case being only a proforma party on the question of age relaxation as this condition was put by MCD, the indenting department as per their recruitment rules (RRs).
5. The counsel of the respondent no. 3 - MCD argued vehemently that both the candidates/applicants had already availed the age relaxation of 2 years beyond 35 years as per para 8 of the advertisement under which age limit for the post is 18-32 years and relaxation for the SC category is 05 years. Therefore both the candidates/ applicants have already availed relaxation of age up to 37 years. As at the time of closing date of application i.e. 19.04.2024 the age of applicants i.e. Praveen Rawat and Sumit Kumar was 37 years 08 months 02 days and 38 years 5 months 17 days respectively. Consequently, till appointment their age would become much more than the permissible limits and further relaxation is not permissible as per RRS.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival written pleadings and oral submissions; examined the relevant documents on record and perused the judgments cited. We have 6 M.A No. 34/2025 in O.A No. 1550/2024 Item 12 (C-3) observed that even if two years age relaxation is granted to the applicants, they would still be ineligible as the applicants are more than 37 years and 38 years respectively. Therefore, under no circumstances can the applicants meet the cut off age criterion. Moreover, no examination for these posts was conducted by DSSSB during the last 10 years and even now there is no date fixed for the examination to be held in near future by the DSSSB. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the instant OA is devoid of merit; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
7. While perusing M.A No. 34/2025 filed by MCD for vacation of stay order granted by the Tribunal, we have observed that this Tribunal on 19.04.2024 had granted interim protection/stay to the applicants by passing the following order :-
"In the instant OA, the applicants are seeking the following inter relief:
"Direct the respondents to accept the application forms (online or hard copies) of the applicants herein for appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Dispenser) (Post Code: 815/24) in MCD as advertised vide Vacancy Notice/Advertisement No. 06/2024 dated 05.03.2024 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) and allow the applicants to appear/participate in the recruitment process (including written examination, etc.)."
Learned counsel for the applicant was directed to explain as to why interim relief can be granted, that is, the right to participate in the selection process. He draws attention to the tentative calendar issued by the DSSSB exam during year 2022, dated 28.12.2021. He highlights that even at sl. No. 24 for the post of Pharmacist/Dispenser (Class 10), the tentative schedule is mentioned.
7 M.A No. 34/2025 in O.A No. 1550/2024Item 12 (C-3) In the present matter, the applicants seeks additional two years' relaxation over and above the 5 years already granted under the Rules. Both applicants belong to the SC category. Since today is the last date of submission of the application, prima facie we are of the view that the applicant has made out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience also lies in favor of the applicant, and irreparable loss and injury shall be suffered if they are not allowed to participate in the selection process. Since the learned counsel for the applicant was able to satisfy in the year 2022 itself, the proposal was mooted to hold the exam. However, the same was not held during that time, and the applicants lost a valuable chance at the relevant point of time.
They may be allowed to participate in the selection process. The said selection process, however, will not give any right to them for selection. The result, if any, shall be kept in a sealed cover and shall not be opened without leave of this Tribunal. In any event, the sealed cover will be opened at the time of the final hearing.
This order has been passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties. In the meantime, learned counsel for the respondents are directed to file reply within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Liberty is also granted to the respective parties to move appropriate application for early hearing/an modification of the present Interim order.
Re-list on 31.05.2024, 'Order Dasti'."
Now, with the passing of the order dismissing the OA No. 1550/2024 itself, the aforesaid stay order too stands vacated.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/