Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 March, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(Reserved on 09.02.2017)
OA No. 060/01193/2015 Date of decision- 07.03.2017
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
Rajender Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Chand,
R/o V.P.O Neja Dela Khurd,
Tehsil & District Sirsa,
Haryana.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. H.S. Saini.
VERSUS
1. Chandigarh Administration
Through its Finance Secretary-cum-Education Secretary,
U.T, Secretariat, Sector 9,
Chandigarh.
2. Director Public Instructions (Schools),
Department of Education, Chandigarh Administration,
U.T, Secretariat, Sector 9,
Chandigarh.
3. Priya Bawa D/o Arun Kumar through Director Public Instructions (Schools),
Department of Education, Chandigarh Administration ,
U.T. Secretariat, Sector 9,
Chandigarh. (Ex parte Order dated 12.05.2016).
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. A.L. Nanda.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
The applicant has assailed selection list dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure A-1) of Backward Class and selection list dated 30.11.2015 under Backward Class (Sports Category). He has further sought issuance of direction from this Court to the respondents to treat the applicant eligible under OBC (Sport Category) by giving him age relaxation and thereafter, offer him appointment to the post of T.G.T Physical Education (DPE).
2. The facts which led to filing of the present O.A are that the respondent-Chandigarh Administration issued an advertisement showing their intention to fill 548 posts of Masters/Mistresses (T.G.T) on regular basis by way of direct recruitment which include 46 posts of D.P.E. Out of these 46 posts, 13 posts were meant for OBC category and 2 posts were reserved for sports category. The applications were invited online and the last date of submission of form was 02.12.2014. As per the eligibility condition, the maximum age limit for all these posts was prescribed 30 years as on 01.01.2014 for male candidates. There was also age relaxation upto 40 years in case of widows, deserted women, upto 35 years for S.C, Government Servant and women, OBC, Ex-servicemen or any other category as per the rules/instructions issued by the Chandigarh Administration in this regard. The applicant who belongs to OBC caste and also a sportsperson of national level in Kabaddi (N.S) and being a silver medalist in it, applied for the post of DPE under OBC category. It is interesting to state here that on cut-off date i.e. 01.01.2014 as prescribed in advertisement, the applicant was over age. He was 34 years 6 months. The selection process was of two types. Firstly, written examination was to be conducted and based upon the marks in it, the candidate/applicant was to be called for second phase i.e. Interview. Accordingly, written examination was held on 14.02.2015 and 28.02.2015. The applicant was declared successful having secured 137 marks out of 200 marks. As per the eligibility criteria, the candidates who scored more than 45% marks, he/she will be called for next stage i.e. for interview. Accordingly, notice was published on the website vide which the candidates were called for interview who had scored more than 45% marks and also for verification of original certificates. The name of the applicant appeared at Sr. No. 11 in the list of OBC category of eligible candidates for interview. Another list was also uploaded on 02.06.2015 vide which eligible candidates were also called for verification of documents on 11.06.2015 and even in this list, name of the applicant appeared at Sr. No. 11 in his category and was called for interview. The applicant appeared. Thereafter, the respondent-Chandigarh Administration uploaded discrepancy list on 17.06.2015 wherein name of the applicant was shown at Sr. No. 56. Thereafter, the candidates whose name were in discrepancy list, were allowed to remove their objection and accordingly, applicant appeared before Committee on 23.06.2016 and submitted a representation for grant of age relaxation of five years as provided to sportsperson, as per the Government of Indias instructions issued time to time on the subject. His request for grant of further age relaxation of five years under sport category was turned down Vide order dated 23.07.2015, and subsequently, a final list of successful candidates in respect of OBC category was published on 27.07.2015. Against the action of the respondents, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A No. 060/00681/2015 praying therein to direct the respondents to treat him eligible for the post of TGT Physical Education (DPE) after granting five years of age relaxation being a sport person. The said O.A was disposed of vide order dated 13.10.2015 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant in the light of the Government Indias instructions dated 03.10.2013. In furtherance to the direction of this Court, he was declared eligible for the post in question and while issuing the final select list on 30.11.2015, the name of the applicant was only considered under the Sport category and not in OBC category as per the direction of this Court. Even the applicant did not make out in the revised select list.
3. Mr. H.S. Saini, learned counsel for the applicant, in furtherance to the above plea, vehemently argued that action of the respondents in declaring the applicant ineligible for the post in question on the ground of over age is totally illegal, arbitrary and thus their action be invalidated and a direction be issued to them to consider the case of the applicant for grant of age relaxation under both categories i.e. OBC + Sport category, meaning thereby, three years age relaxation under OBC category and 5 years under Sport category. In totality, applicant is eligible for 8 year age relaxation. He also argued that the applicant scored more marks in his category i.e. OBC and has been declared ineligible on the ground of age , therefore, selection process be set aside and a direction be issued to the respondents to reframe the select list by treating the applicant eligible by providing eight year of age relaxation. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Jitendera Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P, 2010 (3) SCT 826.
4. The respondents resisted the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed written statement wherein they have submitted that the applicant was more than 30 years of age as on cut-off date i.e. 01.01.2014 as prescribed in the advertisement. He was 34 years 6 months. Since he applied under OBC category, therefore, he was granted three years age relaxation in his age as indicated in the advertisement. Though, he is also a sportsperson but he did not apply under said category, therefore, he cannot be allowed age relaxation of 8 years by clubbing two categories (i.e. OBC and other, Sports category) as there is no such instruction in this behalf as available for other categories. The sole contention in this regard, in para 1 of the written statement reads as under :-
1. That the applicant applied for the post of DPE under OBC category under which three years relaxation in age is permissible as per advertisement. The date of birth of applicant is 06.12.1979 and his age is above 33 years (i.e. 34 years & 6 month) as on 01.01.2014. Being OBC candidate, he could be given three years relaxation. It is neither mentioned in the advertisement nor there any instructions that OBC candidates will be given 8 years of (3 years being OBC + 5 years being sportsperson) relaxation in age. Whenever, any relaxation under two different categories is to be given, that particular instructions/rule is specifically mentioned in the notification. Just for reference purpose, a candidate under PH Category is given 10 year relaxation for Group C post and it is specifically mentioned in the relevant circulars that SC persons with disability will be given 15 years age relaxation and OBC persons with disability will be given 13 years relaxation. Similarly, as per Govt. of India instructions widows, divorced women and women judicially separate from their husbands and who had not re-married, are eligible upto 35 years for Group C post and it is also specifically mentioned that SC candidates are eligible upto 40 years. The applicant does not fall in this category, as such, in the absence of any instructions/rules he cannot be given the benefit of 8 years age relaxation simultaneously being OBC sportsperson.
5. In furtherance to above plea, Sh. A.L. Nanda, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that since the applicant is over age in his category, despite grant of three years of age relaxation as provided to OBC candidate, therefore, O.A be dismissed being devoid of merit.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the pleadings as available on record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. A short question that arose for our consideration is as to whether the applicant is entitled for grant of age relaxation under two categories i.e OBC and Sports category or he is eligible for grant of age relaxation under category in which he applied i.e. OBC.
8. Conjunctive perusal of the pleadings makes it clear that though the applicant is a sportsperson who applied under OBC category but he knew this fact that he was over age on the date of submission of application as he had crossed the upper age limit on the cut off date as prescribed in the advertisement i.e. 01.01.2014 despite being granted the age relaxation of three years as OBC candidate. He was 34 years 6 months. Though, he was allowed to participate in the selection process and he secured highest marks in his category but being an over age, he was declared ineligible. The contention of the applicant is that he be granted 8 years of age relaxation by considering him under OBC + Sports category as under OBC, he becomes eligible for grant of three years age relaxation and under sports category, he will get five years of age relaxation, meaning thereby, he becomes eligible for relaxation of eight years, which cannot be accepted. This contention of the applicant is without any rule formulation or instruction issued by the Government of India and as such cannot also be accepted for the reason that the advertisement, which has force of law, does not suggest likewise. Both the categories are independent and if a person applied under sports category and selected too then he will consume the relevant post under respective category, irrespective of the fact that he belongs to OBC or SC but it cannot be said if person applied under the OBC and being sport person, will also be entitled for grant of age relaxation under both the categories. Therefore, we find no reason to quash the decision taken by the respondents and accordingly, present O.A deserves dismissal being devoid of merit.
9. Even the judgment relied upon by the applicant will not render any assistance because in that case dispute is with regard to eligibility of reserved category whose case was to be considered for appointment against the post of General category and action of the respondents therein was negated on the plea that once the reserved category was allowed age relaxation then he cannot be debarred to have the post of general category if he secured highest marks than the last candidate in General candidate which is not the case here. Accordingly, present O.A is dismissed.
10. No costs.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 07.03.2017
`jk
1
OA No. 060/01193/2015