Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Narender Singh vs Directorate Of Education on 10 September, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No. 2741/2012 Reserved on : 24.07.2013 Pronounced on : 10.09.2013 HONBLE MR. V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) Narender Singh, S/o Shri Ishwar Singh, R/o D-101, Yadav Nagar, Samay Pur, Delhi-110042. .. Applicant (By Advocate : Shri Ravi Dahiya) Versus 1. Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054. Through its Director. 2. Assistant Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Establishment-III Branch, Government of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054. 3. The Deputy Secretary (CC-I), Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092. 4. The Chief Secretary, Delhi Government, New Secretariat, I.P. Estate, Delhi. .. Respondents (By Advocate : Mrs. P.K. Gupta) ORDER
Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Heard Shri Ravi Dahiya, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. P.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the pleadings on record.
2. The applicant is working as Trained Graduate Teacher in the Delhi Cantonment Board, Delhi. In pursuance of an Advertisement No.001/2010, issued by the 3rd respondent, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as DSSSB), for filling up the post of T.G.T. (English) (Male), Post Code No.01/10 in Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi (Respondent No.1), he applied and participated in the selection process. The respondents vide Annexure C, Result Notice No.138 dated 11.03.2011, declared that the applicant stood at Sl. No.4 as per his merit under Unreserved (UR) category by securing a total of 129 marks in Part-II Examination for the said post. However, the respondents finally vide impugned orders dated 24.08.2011 (Annexure P) and dated 01.03.2012 (Annexure G) rejected the candidature of the applicant for appointment to the post of T.G.T. (English) (Male) on the ground that he crossed the upper age limit by 5 months and 5 days as on the crucial date fixed by the DSSSB. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present OA.
3. The clause pertaining to the age limit in the Advertisement No.001/2010 (Annexure B) reads as follows:
Age limit: Below 32 years (relaxable in case of Govt. Servants of Delhi Admn. upto 40 years (45 years for SC/ST employees) and upto 42 years in case of female candidates.) Upper age limit Relaxable for : SC/ST- 5 years, OBC- 3 years, PH- 05 years, PH & SC/ST- 10 years, PH & OBC-08 years)
4. It is also not in dispute that as per the notified Recruitment Rules for the post of T.G.T. (English), the upper age limit is 32 years for the UR candidates, to which category the applicant belongs to.
5. The date of birth of the applicant is 10.10.1972. The crucial date for determination of upper age limit is 15.03.2010, i.e. the last date for receipt of applications as per the Annexure B Advertisement. Therefore, the applicant is 37 years 5 months 5 days old as on the said relevant date. Since as per the Advertisement and also as per the Recruitment Rules the upper age limit is 32 years, he is required an age relaxation of 5 years, 5 months and 5 days.
6. The applicant submits that as per Annexure A dated 03.05.1976 of the Directorate of Education, Delhi Persons who have experience of teaching in recognized schools, the number of years of teaching experience may be added to the maximum age limit and relaxation be allowed to the extent of 15 years to the maximum age limit, and hence, since he has been working in the Delhi Cantonment Board as a Teacher and having more than 6 years teaching experience, he is entitled for appointment in view of Annexure A - Age Relaxation.
7. The applicant further submits that as per Annexure B Advertisement, the upper age limit is relaxable upto 40 years in case of Government Servants of Delhi Administration. Since he is working in the Delhi Cantonment Board, which is under the Delhi Administration, he is entitled for age relaxation upto 40 years and on this count also, he is entitled for appointment.
8. The applicant further submits that once it was declared vide Annexure C that he stood at Sl.No.4 as per his merit under General category by securing 129 marks in Part-II of the Examination, he accrued certain rights, and the respondents cannot reject his candidature without giving him an opportunity to defend his case, and without any notice thereto violating the principles of natural justice.
9. The respondents filed their counter and denied the above averments. It is the specific case of the respondents that as per instructions issued by the Services Department, the upper age is relaxable for Government Servants upto 5 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government, and accordingly, the applicant was given age relaxation of 5 years. Even after giving the said age relaxation of 5 years, still the applicant is overaged by 5 months 5 days, and accordingly, the action of the respondents in rejecting the applicants case for appointment on the ground of overage is in order and in accordance with law.
10. It is further submitted that the Circular dated 03.05.1976 (Annexure A), wherein the applicant placed reliance, is outdated and superceded by virtue of the notification of the Recruitment Rules fixing the maximum age limit w.e.f. 11.12.1991. It is further submitted that after notifying the amended Recruitment Rules for the post of T.G.T. (English), the orders regarding extension of age concession to certain categories issued vide the said Circular dated 03.05.1976 shall automatically ceases to exist.
11. It is further submitted that the Delhi Cantonment Board is an autonomous body, and hence, the applicant cannot be treated as a Government Servant of Delhi Administration to make him eligible for availing the age relaxation upto the age of 40 years.
12. Admittedly, the applicant is working as a T.G.T. in the Delhi Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonment Act, 2006 (Act No.41 of 2006) as amended from time to time. It is pertinent to read the following provisions of the said Act:
2. (b) "Board" means a Cantonment Board constituted under this Act.
2. (y) "Government" in relation to this Act means the Central Government.
10. Cantonment Board. - (1) For every cantonment there shall be a Cantonment Board.
(2) Every Board shall be deemed to be a municipality under clause (e) of article 243-P of the Constitution for the purposes of-
(a) receiving grants and allocations; or
(b) implementing the Central Government schemes of social welfare, public health, hygiene, safety, water supply, sanitation, urban renewal and education.
11. Incorporation of Cantonment Board.- Every Board shall, by the name of the place by reference to which the cantonment is known, be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire and hold property both movable and immovable and to contract and shall by the said name, sue and be sued.
13. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Act clearly indicates that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Delhi Cantonment Board is a part of the Delhi Administration. The respondents, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi has no power, control or jurisdiction over the Board or its employees, and hence, the contention of the applicant that the Delhi Cantonment Board is a part of the Delhi Administration is untenable and unacceptable, and accordingly, the same is rejected.
14. As rightly submitted by the respondents that after the notification of the Recruitment Rules for the post of T.G.T. (English), the service conditions notified therein were only applicable including in respect of age. Therefore, the Circular dated 03.05.1976 issued long back to the issuance of the Recruitment Rules, are not applicable at present.
15. It is also not in dispute that the Government has issued number of circulars subsequent to the Annexure A and the benefit of age has been given to the candidates by incorporating the same in the Advertisement No.001/2010 (Annexure B). Further, the respondents have, in fact, given an age relaxation of 5 years as per the instructions issued by the Services Department. However, even thereafter, the applicant is overaged by a period of 5 months 5 days.
16. Since the applicant was over-aged, and not qualified, even as on the date of his application made in pursuance of the Advertisement No.001/2010, acquiring 129 marks in the Part-II written examination does not confirm any right on him, and accordingly, there is no illegality in the action of the respondents in not selecting him for appointment to the post of T.G.T. (English) (Male).
17. In these circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA lacks any merit, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (V. AJAY KUMAR)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/Jyoti/