Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Devender Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 13 November, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.3297/2012 Order reserved on: 24.09.2013 Order pronounced on: 13.11.2013 Honble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A) Devender Singh, Serving as Leading Fireman, Delhi Fire Service, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. Applicant. (By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, FC-18, Karkardoma, Institutional Area, Delhi-110092. 3. The Director Headquarters, Delhi Fire Service, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate: Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi) ORDER Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A):
The applicant, a leading Fireman under Delhi Fire Service (DFS), applied for the post of Sub Officer in DFS in response to an advertisement issued in November, 2009. The age limit prescribed for the post was not exceeding 27 years while as per the date of birth of the applicant he was 32 years, 04 months and 07 days on the cut off date. Hence he was considered overage. It is the case of the applicant that according to the G.I., DoP&T notification no.15012/6/98-Estt.(D) dated 21.12.1998, which is applicable to the employees of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the departmental candidates are eligible for relaxation upto 40 years of age (45 years for SC/ST) for appointment to Group C and D posts. The respondents have, however, not extended the provisions of this notification to the applicant and rejected his candidature despite having cleared Part-I and Part-II of the written examination.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a similar issue had come up before the Honble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition no.904/1990 wherein the petitioner was not called for interview and endurance test for the post of Station Officer on the ground that he was overage despite the OM dated 20.05.1988 of the Central Government, raising the age limit for Group C departmental candidates to 40 years. In that case the stand of the respondents was that the Delhi Municipal Corporation, to which the petitioner belonged, would not be automatically covered by the Central Government notification and it would require a fresh resolution of the Municipal Corporation. The Honble High Court allowed the petition taking a view that the petitioner was entitled to the relief and there was no need, in the light of the memorandum of the Central Government, for any amendment in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act/Recruitment Rules. In another case in Civil Writ Petition no.2215/1990 where the petitioner was a leading Fireman in DFS (as is the case in the present OA) had applied for the post of Sub Officer in April, 1989 and again in June, 1990. He was not considered on the ground that he was overage for the post. Applying the ratio of the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.904/1990 the Honble Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel of the applicant, therefore, is of the view that the prayer of the applicant in the present OA is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) had advertised 18 vacancies for the post of Sub Officer in DFS under Post Code no.052/09 vide advertisement no.03/09 and 03 vacancies for the post of Sub Fire Officer in NDMC under post code no.076/09 vide advertisement no.04/09. The applicant had filed applications against both the post codes but the age requirement being different, he was found eligible for the post code 076/09 for NDMC but not for post code 52/09. He further submits that the DSSSB had received a letter dated 19.11.2009 from Director, DFS stating that as per the notification of DoP&T dated 02.12.1998 the age concession available for appointment to Group C and D posts by direct recruitment for departmental candidates was upto 40 years of age (45 years for SC/ST) and accordingly a corrigendum may be issued in respect of departmental candidates in order to avoid litigation at a later stage. The DSSSB had, however, vide letter dated 22.12.2009 intimated DFS that the DSSSB would go strictly by the recruitment rules in the requisition sent by the concerned department while considering the request. If the recruitment rules had been amended, then the attested copies of the same may be forwarded to the DSSSB for further action. Since no further information was received from DFS, the DSSSB went ahead with the recruitment on the basis of the existing recruitment rules. Therefore, there was no ground for the applicant now to agitate against rejection of his candidature on the ground of being overage.
4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. From the perusal of the pleadings and especially the letters exchanged between DSSSB and DFS the main issue is whether the DoP&T notification dated 21.12.1998 giving age relaxation to departmental candidates would become applicable to the post of Sub Officer, DFS only after its recruitment rules had been amended, as insisted by the DSSSB.
5. Here, we may refer to the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court in CWP no.904/1990 where the petitioner was an employee of Delhi Municipal Corporation and the plea taken by the respondents in that case was that the Central Government notification giving age relaxation to Government employees would become applicable only after the Municipal Corporation had passed a resolution to that effect. The Honble High Court of Delhi did not accept this argument and had allowed that Petition. In the present case the applicant is an employee of DFS, which comes directly under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and, therefore, any notification issued by the Central Government would automatically be applicable to the applicant. In any case, the respondent no.1, i.e., Govt. of NCT of Delhi has not filed any counter-reply and the letter of DFS dated 19.11.2009 would show that the provision of DoP&T notification dated 21.12.1998 was applicable to the applicant. So this fact is not disputed by the respondents no.1 and 3. The only question is whether such relaxation can be extended only when the same has been inserted in the recruitment rules of a post. In this connection it is observed that this kind of general instruction is issued by the Government from time to time on general policy issues governing recruitments and a plea cannot be taken that they will become applicable only when the recruitment rules of each and every post under the Government have been amended. The age relaxation, for example, is extended to a large number of categories starting from SC/ST/OBC/Ex-serviceman, physically handicapped/ departmental candidates etc. and the period for which such relaxation is allowed is different for different categories. Obviously, all these details cannot be prescribed in the recruitment rules against each post in the Government. The implied insistence by the DSSSB on an amended recruitment rule vide its letter dated 22.12.2009 before taking further action was not justified.
6. In the light of the facts and reasons narrated above, we allow this OA. It is further noted that vide order dated 12.10.2012 this Tribunal had directed the DSSSB to issue admit card to the applicants and allow them to appear in the physical endurance test provisionally along with other candidates appearing in the same examination and this direction was subject to the outcome of OAs no.3296 and 3297 of 2012. Respondents shall accordingly declare the result of the applicant on merit, allowing him the age concession as a departmental candidate under DoP&T notification dated 21.12.2009. No costs.
(V.N. Gaur) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (A) San.