Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Abhinandan Kumar vs Union Of India Through on 9 July, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI O.A. NO.2394/2007 This the 9th day of July, 2008 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SMT. CHITRA CHOPRA, MEMBER (A) Abhinandan Kumar, Recruit Tax Assistant S/o Suresh Kumar, R/o VPO Ladpur, Delhi-81. Applicant ( By Shri Anil Singal, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 3. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri V.P.Uppal and Shri S.M.Arif, Advocates ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Abhinandan Kumar, the applicant herein, holding the post of constable in Delhi Police, claiming himself to be a Central Government employee, seeks relaxation in age for appointment to the post of Tax Assistant in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue.
2. Brief facts as set out in the Application reveal that the applicant is working as constable in Delhi Police since 22.2.1999. The Staff Selection Commission, 2nd respondent herein, issued advertisement for recruitment on the post of Tax Assistant in the office of Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), 1st respondent herein, for which age limit was 20 years as minimum and 27 years as maximum. However, relaxation in upper age limit for departmental candidates was up to 35 years, if they were to be civilian employees of the Central Government and had put in at least three years of continuous service as on 11.8.2006. The applicant who applied pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents, qualified the written test held on 12.11.2006 and was called for skill test vide letter dated 28.3.2007, which too, he qualified. Final result was declared in April/May, 2007 but the applicant did not find his name in the list of selected candidates. He made applications under the Right to Information Act on 28.5.2007 and 19.7.2007. Vide letter dated 29.8.2007 he was informed by the second respondent that his candidature was cancelled on ground of being overage. It is this order which has been challenged in the present Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
3. All that has been pleaded and also canvassed during the course of arguments is that Delhi Police is still a Central subject and its employees are Central Government civilian employees, since the subjects like police and public order have not been transferred to the State Legislature of NCT of Delhi, and, therefore, Delhi Police is under the Central Government and its expenditure is also met from the Consolidated Fund of India. That being so, it is argued, the applicant is entitled to the age relaxation available to Central Government civilian employees.
4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have entered appearance and contested the cause of the applicant. It has inter alia been pleaded in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that relaxation in the upper age limit is provided only to Central Government civilian employees as per instructions issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DOP&T) vide their letter dated 30.12.2004, and that Central Government civilian employees only are eligible for age relaxation for the post of Tax Assistant, whereas the applicant, it is stated, is working in Delhi Police, which is not a Central Government department. In the letter dated 30.12.2004, it has been clearly stated that persons serving in Delhi Police are not eligible for age relaxation as departmental employees for appointment in Central Government posts, and as such the applicant is not entitled to get age relaxation for the post of Tax Assistant. It is further pleaded that no provision has been made for age relaxation for employees of Government of NCT of Delhi, i.e., employees of Union Territory. Sub-para (a) under para (iv) of OM dated 27.12.2005 of the Ministry of Home Affairs further clarifies that as per Delhi Police Act, the superintendence and control of Delhi Police is vested in the Lt. Governor of Delhi.
5. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. Even though, prima facie, Delhi Police does not appear to be a Central Government department, superintendence and control of which is vested with the Lt. Governor of Delhi, there would be no need to go into this question, as even if it is so assumed, the applicant, in any case, cannot be a civilian employee. Those employed with armed forces, para military forces or police organisations cannot be said to be civilian employees. That apart, DOP&T OM dated 30.12.2004 wherein it has been stated that persons serving in Delhi Police are not eligible for age relaxation as departmental employees for appointment in Central Government posts, has not been even challenged. The applicant may not be knowing of this OM at the time he filed the OA, but surely, when it was brought to his notice when the respondents filed their reply, he ought to have challenged the said OM either by filing rejoinder or seeking amendment of the OA. No relief at all can be granted to the applicant unless the OM aforesaid is set aside. By no stretch of imagination, in our considered view, a constable in Delhi Police can be termed as a civilian employee and that being so, whether Delhi Police is a Central Government department or not, would not make the least difference.
6. Finding no merit in this Application, we dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
( Chitra Chopra ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/