Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar Singhal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through The Chief ... on 23 March, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.1240/2008 New Delhi this the 23rd day of March, 2010. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Anil Kumar Singhal, S/o late Shri Jagdish Parshad Singhal, R/o House No.118/21, A Block, Dharampura Colony, Najafgarh, Delhi-110043. -Applicant (By Advocate Shri S.K. Sinha) -Versus- 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, Delhi. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat, Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Selection Service, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi-110032. -Respondents (By Advocates Ms. Renu George and Shri Vijay Pandita) O R D E R Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
It is no more res integra, as ruled by the Apex Court in U.P.S.C. v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1115, that Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not Government and its employees are not Government servants governed by Articles 309 to 311 of the Constitution of India.
2. In the above backdrop, applicant by virtue of this OA seeks relaxation in age for appointment to the post of TGT (Maths).
3. By way of amended OA Shri S.K. Sinha, learned counsel of applicant seeks interpretation of Rule to include MCD employees as departmental candidates.
4. Recruitment rules for the posts of TGT Maths, English, Computer Science etc. in direct recruitment provides relaxation of age upto 42 years in the case of female candidates and relaxation for employees of Delhi Administration upto 40 years for General and 45 years for SC/ST candidates. Note-1 appended with the recruitment rules provides that age limit for direct recruitment will be relaxable in the case of SC/ST and other special categories of persons in accordance with the general orders issued from time to time by the Central Govt.
5. Applicant as per the result had qualified for appointment having secured more marks than the last selectee in general category, yet was not appointed because he was found ineligible as to the upper age limit. Learned counsel of applicant while relying upon Central Civil Services and Civil Posts Upper Age Limit for Direct Recruitment Rules, 1998 stated that a departmental candidate with three years continuous service is eligible for age relaxation for appointment to Group C posts, which are in the same line or allied cadre. To buttress his plea, learned counsel has relied upon DoP&T OM dated 30.1.1990, whereby the following has been provided:
3. Age relaxation admissible to departmental candidates applying for Group C and Group D posts against outsiders quota.(1) The staff Side of the National Council (JCM) had suggested that the Departmental candidates who possess the prescribed qualifications may be allowed to compete with relaxed age-limit with the nominees of Employment Exchanges/Open marked candidates for higher posts which are to be filled by direct recruitment in any office in the same department.
(2) The request made by the Staff Side of the National Council (JCM) has been examined and it has been decided that
(i) for direct recruitment in Group D posts/services, the upper age limit will be relaxable up to the age of 35 years (45 years in the case of SC/ST candidates);
(ii) for direct recruitment in Group C/Group D posts/services, the departmental candidates may be allowed to compete along with candidates from the open marked up to the age of 40 years (45 years in the case of SC/ST candidates).
(iii) the above concessions are subject to the condition that the direct recruitment posts in Group D/Group C posts/services are in the same line or allied cadres and a relationship could be established that service rendered in the Department/posts will be useful for efficient discharge of the duties in the other categories of post.
(iv) The above concessions will be admissible only where an employee has rendered not less than three years continuous service under the Government.
(3) The question of determining the same line or allied cadres [referred to in (iii) above] is, however left to be decided by each Ministry/Department. The Staff Selection Commission makes recruitment to all Group C non-technical posts. With a view to reducing delays in processing of application submitted by departmental candidates with reference to the advertisements issued by the SSC, it has been decided that it will be entirely within the discretion of the Staff Selection Commission to take a view whether the nexus principle is satisfied or not in individual cases. Wherever the duties of the posts concerned are not clear, the Commission may consult the organizations in which the posts in question are located.
(4) The existing age concessions available to Group D employees for appointment to Group C posts and to Clerks for appointment as Stenographers in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service and any other existing concession shall continue. [G.I., M.H.A. D.P. & A.R., O.M. NO.F.4/4/74-Estt. (D), dated the 20th July, 1976, 15012/2/81-Estt. (D), dated the 8th April, 1981, 35014/4/79-Estt. (D), dated the 24th October, 1985; 18th November, 1985; D.P.T., O.M. No.15034/3/87-Estt. (D), dated the 7th October, 1987; 15012/1/88-Estt. (D), dated the 20th May, 1988 and dated the 30th January, 1990.]
6. In the light of the above, learned counsel of applicant states that as the applicant is in the feeder category for promotion in direct line, as such is entitled for age relaxation.
7. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Pandita, learned counsel for respondent No.3 relied upon a decision of the coordinate Bench in Sanjay Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., OA No.711/2008, decided on 23.10.2008, where a MCD employee has not been found to be a Government servant for grant of age relaxation. Learned counsel would contend that as the relaxation is only given to departmental candidates, it has to be interpreted as per the recruitment rules, which hold the field, i.e., employees of the Delhi Administration and the applicant not being an employee, is not entitled to relaxation.
8. However, Mrs. Renu George, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 vehemently opposed the contentions and relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in CWP No.5238/2003, decided on 19.1.2004 and stated that as the relaxation is provided only to the employees of Delhi Administration, MCD employees have a right to be considered for promotion, where the age is not relevant but for direct recruitment they cannot be treated as departmental candidates.
9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record.
10. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Jamuna Kurup (supra) and as per the OM of 1990 relied upon by the applicants counsel assuming the applicant is a departmental candidate, yet in view of clause 2 (iv) of the OM before concession would be admissible for age relaxation, one should have rendered not less than three years continuous service under the Government. As the applicant is neither a Government servant nor MCD a Government, in such view of the matter, being ineligible even as per OM, age relaxation cannot be allowed to the applicant. However, he is eligible for promotion as per the recruitment rules for which law shall take its own course. Accordingly, OA is dismissed being bereft of merit. No costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju)
Member (A) Member (J)
San.