Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hon Ble Shri Ashok Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A.NO.2041 OF 2014 New Delhi, this the 15th day of July, 2015 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. Dr.Kailash Kumar Rana, s/o Sh.Ranvir Singh Rana, R/o VPO: Daha, District: Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh-250622 . Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sanjay Visen) Vs. 1. Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi Through its Secretary 2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Development Commissioner, Development Department, 5/9, Under Hills Road, Delhli 110054 3. The Director, Animal Husbandry, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Room No.98-101, Old Secretariat, Delhi 110054 .. Respondents (By Advocates: Ms.Sangeeta Rai for R-1, & Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal with Mr.Amit Yadav for R-2 & 3) .. ORDER Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J):
Brief facts: On the basis of selection and recommendation made by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, the applicant was appointed as a Veterinary Officer in Uttar Pradesh Veterinary Services, Grade II (Pay Scale Rs.8000-13500). He joined the said post on 15.12.1998. While serving as such, he came to know from the Employment News 24 30 May 2014 that respondent no.1-UPSC, vide Advertisement No.09/2014 (Sr.No.14), invited online recruitment applications (ORA) for recruitment by selection to 26 vacancies in the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Development Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. The closing date for submission of online recruitment application through website was 23:59 hours on 12.6.2014. The said Advertisement prescribed the age limit of 35 years and also provided for age relaxation for Central/U.T Government employees in the following terms:
The upper age limit is relaxable for Central/U.T.Govt. servants up to 5 years as per instructions issued by the Govt.of India from time to time. (10 years for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and 8 years for persons belonging to other Backward Classes in respect of the posts reserved for them) in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Government of India. A candidate claiming to belong to the category of Central Government servant and thus seeking age relaxation under this para would be required to produce a Certificate in the prescribed proforma issued after the date of advertisement from his/her Employer on the Office letter head to the effect that he/she is a regularly appointed Central Government Servant and not on casual/ad hoc/daily wages/hourly paid/contract basis employee.
The age relaxation will be admissible to such of the Government servants as are working in posts which are in the same line or allied cadres and where a relationship could be established that the service already rendered in a particular post will be useful for the efficient discharge of the duties of the post(s) recruitment to which has been advertised. Decision in this regard will rest with the Commission. The applicants date of birth being 1.7.1974, he was aged 39 years as on the cut off date prescribed in the Advertisement. It is the grievance of the applicant that the aforesaid condition for age relaxation is discriminatory and irrational inasmuch as it deprives him of an opportunity to apply for the said post, although he is similarly placed as Central Government and U.T. employees working in posts which are in the same line or allied cadres and where a relationship could be established that the service already rendered in a particular post will be useful for the efficient discharge of the duties of the post, recruitment to which has been advertised. The applicant submits that the said condition relating to age relaxation is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as it denies equal opportunity to State Government employees, like the applicant, for public employment. Therefore, he has filed the present Original Application for quashing the Advertisement No.09/2014 (Vacancy No.14050914124) for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in Development Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, published in Employment News dated 24-30 May 2014 (Annexure A).
2. Respondent no.1-Union Public Service Commission, in its counter reply, has stated that the age relaxation has been prescribed in the advertisement strictly in consonance with the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, vide its circular no.15012/2/2010-Estt.(D), dated 27th March, 2012 (Annexure R-1). The applicant has not challenged the said instructions issued by the Government of India pertaining to age relaxation. In the absence of any such challenge, the relief as prayed for in the O.A. cannot be granted. The applicant not being a Central/U.T. Government employee is disentitled for age relaxation. The instructions issued by the Government of India for the benefit of its employees are by no stretch of imagination arbitrary or irrational. It is submitted by respondent no.1-UPSC that Article 14 permits classification. Classification made by the Central Government in favour of its employees is, thus, not arbitrary, more so when the instructions in question satisfy the test of valid classification.
3. A separate counter reply on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 has also been filed opposing the O.A. It is, inter alia, stated by respondent nos. 2 and 3 that in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, the age limit of 35 years is prescribed for direct recruitment, and the upper age limit is relaxable for Government servants up to 5 years in accordance with the instructions, or order issued by the Government. As the age relaxation is applicable in accordance with the instruction, or order issued by the Government, the UPSC has offered the upper age limit relaxable for Central /UT Government servants up to 5 years in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time. Thus, there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4. In his rejoinder replies, the applicant has refuted the stand taken by the respondents. It is, inter alia, stated by the applicant that neither the instructions issued by the Government of India, vide its circular dated 27.3.2012 ibid nor the Recruitment Rules for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon exclude admissibility of relaxation in upper age limit to State Government employees.
5. We have perused the records and have heard Shri Sanjay Visen, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Shri Ravinder Aggarwal with Shri Amit Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, and Ms.Sangita Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
6. Reiterating the contention of the applicant, Shri Sanjay Visen, learned counsel appearing for him, invited our attention to the decision of Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in Dr.Rajendra Raghuvanshi, etc. v. The Union of India and others, OA Nos. 461 to 463 of 2013, decided on 6.12.2013.
6.1 In Dr.Rajendra Raghuvanshis case (supra), the applicants were duly selected and appointed as Medical Officers on contract basis by the Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli U.T. After they put in more than 5 years of service on contract basis, the applicants made applications for selection and appointment to the post of Medical Officer in response to the advertisement dated 12.1.2013 issued by the Union Public Service Commission. The said advertisement contained similar condition of age relaxation as in the advertisement impugned in the present O.A. Claiming age relaxation, they filed Original Applications before Bombay Bench of the Tribunal. Allowing the O.As., the Tribunal held thus:
27. By a liberal and equitable construction of rule, it is apparent from a careful reading of sub-para 2 of para 6 of government order date 19.04.1981, that a distinction has been made between regular Government servants and other than regular Government servants. In the first part of sub para 2, it is mentioned that Government servants maybe allowed on a uniform basis, relaxation of maximum of five years in the upper age limit for recruitment by advertisements through the Commission. In the later part, it is mentioned that the age relaxation will be admissible to such of the Government servants as are working in posts which are in the same line or allied cadres or a relationship could be established in between service already rendered and the service for a particular post advertised for recruitment. By equitable construction and interpretation, benefits can be drawn from later part of that para for applicants in the case of these three applicants. These three applicants are not back door entrants and are not claiming regularization of service. They are only seeking age relaxation to participate in the selection process for the post of Medical Doctors only where they have ample experience and where a clear relationship can be established between service they are rendering and also service attached to the post of Medical Doctors, which has been advertised for recruitment.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the condition relating to relaxation in upper age limit has been incorporated in the impugned advertisement as per the provision contained in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel & Training. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the decision in Dr.Rajendra Raghuvanshis case (supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant, is not applicable to the applicants case.
7.1 In support of their contentions that age relaxation is admissible only to the Central/UT Government servants in accordance with the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel & Training from time to time, and that in the absence of specific instructions issued by the Central Government, age relaxation to State Government servants cannot be brought in by any judicial interpretation, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in P.K.Bhasin v. Union of India and others, MANU/DE/0723/1991, and Jamaluddin v. State of Jammu &Kashmir and others, (2011) 14 SCC 725.
7.2 In P.K.Bhasins case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court held thus:
..In so far as the Union Territory is concerned, the Central Government by virtue of Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 means the President and includes, inter alia, Administrator of a Union Territory acting within the scope of the authority given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution. Further under Section 3(60) of the General Clauses Act, State Government also means in so far as a Union Territory is concerned, the Central Government. The position thus boils down to this that in so far as a Union Territory is concerned, such as Delhi, the Administrator acting within the scope of the authority given to him by the President under Article 239 of the Constitution is equated with the Central Government. 7.3 In Jamaluddins case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court held that if there is no age relaxation in the rules, the same cannot be brought in by any judicial interpretation.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions of the parties.
9. The Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (Group A Gazetted) post of Development Department Recruitment Rules, 2012, prescribe age limit of 35 years for direct recruits, and that such age limit is relaxable for Government servants up to 5 years in accordance with the instructions or order issued by the Central Government. The Department of Personnel & Training, vide its O.M. dated 27.3.2012, issued consolidated orders on relaxation in upper age limit allowed to Central Government servants for recruitment to various categories of posts under the Central Government. In the tabular statement contained in the O.M. dated 27.3.2012, vide sl.no.12, referring to the earlier O.Ms. dated 15.10.1987 and 24.10.1985, it is reiterated that for Groups A and B posts filled through UPSC (other than those filled on the basis of competitive examination) and posts which are exempted from purview of UPSC (where recruitment is made by organizations themselves), age relaxation up to 5 years is admissible for posts which are in the same line or allied cadres and where a relationship could be established that the service already rendered in a particular post will be useful for the efficient discharge of the duties of post.
10. It is the contention of the applicant that neither the Recruitment Rules nor the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel & Training exclude the admissibility of age relaxation to employees working in the State Governments and, therefore, the condition incorporated in the impugned Advertisement that age relaxation up to 5 years is admissible only to Central/U.T. Government servants, is arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory. We find no substance in the said contention of the applicant; firstly, because the Recruitment Rules provide for age relaxation for Government servants up to 5 years in accordance with the instruction or order issued by the Central Government; secondly, because the instructions issued by the Central Government, i.e., Department of Personnel & Training, vide its O.M. dated 27.3.2012, speak about relaxation in upper age limit allowed to Central Government servants for recruitment to various categories of posts under the Central Government; thirdly, because there is no mention in any of the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel & Training that relaxation in upper age limit is admissible to State Government employees for recruitment to posts under the Central Government. The applicant has not produced before us any instruction, or order, issued by the Central Government allowing relaxation in upper age limit to State Government employees for recruitment to various categories of posts under the Central Government, or for recruitment to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in Development Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. In the absence of any specific provision for age relaxation admissible to the State Government employees laid down in the DoP&Ts O.M. dated 27.3.2012 ibid and the Recruitment Rules for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, the same cannot be brought in by judicial interpretation, as has been held in Jamaluddins case (supra).
11. It cannot be said that employees working under the State Government and those working under the Central/ U.T. Government form one and same class. The recruiting agencies, mode of recruitment, conditions of service, etc., of employees of the State Government and that of the Central/U.T. Government are also not exactly same. Thus, the employees working under the State Government(s), like the applicant in the present case, being unequally placed, cannot claim, as a matter of right, relaxation in upper age limit admissible to Central/U.T. Government servants. The applicant has not placed before this Tribunal any instruction, or order, issued by the Central Government laying down that relaxation in upper age limit is admissible to State Government employees for recruitment to posts under Central/U.T. Government filled through UPSC. In the above view of the matter, we have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the applicant that the condition incorporated in the impugned advertisement (Annexure A) relating to relaxation in upper age limit is arbitrary, irrational, and discriminatory.
12. The decision of Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in Dr.Rajendra Raghuvanshis case (supra), besides being distinguishable on facts, is of no help to the case of the applicant.
13. It has been brought to our notice that in pursuance of the impugned advertisement, the interview of the short-listed candidates took place on and from 9th to 12th February, 2015, and that 26 candidates have been recommended for appointment to the 26 vacancies in the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon.
14. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the O.A. is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN