Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Siddharth Bodwal vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 17 January, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2181/2011 This the 17th day of January, 2012 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) Siddharth Bodwal Tourist Information Officer, Gp C Aged 41 years, s/o Shri Kartar Singh r/o Flat No.88, Sector 6, Pocket 1 DDA, SFS Flats, Dwarka New Delhi-75 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri H K Gupta) Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Tourism Transport Bhawan Parliament Street, New Delhi-1 2. The Addl. Director General (Tourism) Department of Tourism Transport Bhawan Parliament Street, New Delhi-1 3. The Secretary, UPSC Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road New Delhi 4. The Secretary Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training Central Secretariat, North Block New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocates: Shri R N Singh for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 Shri Naresh Kaushik for respondent No.3) O R D E R
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
The applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:-
i) In view of the foregoing the applicant prays that this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned OM at Annexure A-1 and direct that direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Director being done, on the basis of advertisement of 2010, may kindly be quashed and fresh candidates be called for interview on the basis of year-wise vacancies being treated separately as the unit for selection.
ii) Grant cost of litigation in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
iii) Grant any other relief considered appropriate in the matter.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on the receipt of a requisition on 5.4.2010 from the Ministry of Tourism based upon the existing recruitment rules, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) respondent No.3 published an advertisement in the employment news dated 12-18.6.2010 vide Advertisement No.11, Item No.10 for recruitment to nine posts of Assistant Director/Manager/Tourist Promotion Officer in the Ministry of Tourism. The last date of receipt of applications was 1.7.2010 (and 8.7.2010 for those applicants posting their applications from abroad and certain specified remote areas). However, later on, it was noticed that in some Hindi newspapers, due to some inadvertent mistake, the pay band and the grade pay limit was published wrongly as Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay Rs.6600/- instead of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4600/- and the age limit was published as 40 years instead of 30 years. The applicant has placed on record a copy of extract from employment news (Hindi) dated 12-18.6.2010 as Annexure A-6. However, subsequently, by taking a remedial action, a corrigendum was issued to this effect by the UPSC on 28.8.2010. Accordingly, the application of the applicant was rejected on the ground being overage. The representation made by the applicant on 21.6.2010 was rejected vide OM dated 9.9.2010. It is this order which is under challenge in this OA and on the basis of these facts the applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the aforementioned reliefs.
3. Notice of this application was given to all the respondents, who have filed their separate replies. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of UPSC, a copy of advertisement No.11 published in the employment news dated 12-18.6.2010 has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. The UPSC has also annexed a copy of the recruitment rules as Annexure R-2, which was issued for the posts of Assistant Director/Manager/Tourist Promotion Officer and in column Nos.6 & 7, following provisions have been made, which thus read:-
6. Age limit for direct recruits Not exceeding 30 years (Relaxable for Government Servant upto 5 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government) 6a. xx xx xx
7. Educational and other qualification required for direct recruits Essential
(i) Degree of recognized University or equivalent
(ii) 3-year experience of Public relations or publicity or administrative work or diploma in Public Administration or training in Public relations with 2 years experience as above.
(iii) Familiarity with places of tourist interest in India and with the history and culture of India Desirable:
(i) Foreign travel experience
(ii) Knowledge of foreign language(s) other than English and capacity to speak and write these languages correctly and fluently.
4. Thus, as can be seen from the portion, as quoted above, the age limit prescribed for direct recruitment is 30 years, which is relaxable for the government servant upto 5 years. The UPSC, in its reply, has further stated that the date of birth of the applicant is 21.9.1969. Admittedly, he belongs to scheduled caste category. Thus, according to respondent No.3, even if the applicant is given 5 years relaxation being a government servant and 5 years being a scheduled caste category candidate, he is entitled for age relaxation of 10 years only. According to respondent No.3, even if the applicant is given 10 years age relaxation, he is overage by nine months and 11 days as on closing date, i.e., 1.7.2010. Thus, according to respondent No.3, as per requirement of the statutory rules, the applicant being overage was not entitled as such his representation was rightly rejected under overage category.
5. The applicant has filed the rejoinder affidavit, thereby reiterating the submissions made in the OA.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. We are of the view that the applicant cannot make out any case on the basis of the employment news (Hindi) dated 12-18.6.2010 (Annexure A-6) whereby the pay band as well as the age limit for the post in question was wrongly published as 40 years instead of 30 years, as mandated in the recruitment rules, especially when there was no such infirmity in other advertisement (Annexure A-1). That apart the UPSC (respondent No.3) has also issued corrigendum dated 28.8.2010.
7. Law on this point is no longer res integra. At this stage, we wish to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan & another v. U.P. Public Service Commission & others, 2006 (3) SLR 71 whereby the Apex Court has held that the error in the advertisement cannot override the rules and create a right in favour of a candidate not otherwise eligible in accordance with the rules. Accordingly, the Apex Court in paragraph 21 of the said judgment held as follows:-
21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1st July, 2001 and 1st July, 2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules.
8. The ratio as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Rather the present case is on a better footing. In this case, the age prescribed for the post in question was correctly reflected in the English version (Annexure R-1 with the reply filed by UPSC), whereas pay scale with grade pay and age limit was wrongly mentioned in the employment news (Hindi) version, which mistake was subsequently rectified by the UPSC by issuing a corrigendum dated 28.8.2010. Thus the applicant has no legal right to base his claim on the basis of Annexure A-6, which stands subsequently superseded by issuing a corrigendum dated 28.8.2010 and was against the statutory provisions.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the OA is found bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
( Smt. Manjulika Gautam ) ( M L Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/