Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pankaj Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission on 12 February, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA NO. 4353/2010
Date of Reserve: 6th February, 2012
Date of Pronouncement: 12th February, 2012
Honble Shri G.George Paracken, Member(J)
Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member(A)
1. Pankaj Kumar
s/o Sh. Kailash Pd.
r/o F-253A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi.
2. Satender Singh
S/o Kishan Singh
R/o H.No.41, H Block,
Gali No.3, Shastri Park, Delhi-110053.
. Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
3. Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pension,
Through its Secretary,
North Block, New Delhi.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. S.M.Arif)
O R D E R
Honble Shri George Paracken:
The applicant No.1 is working as Sub Inspector (Executive) and Applicant No.2 is working as Head Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police. Their grievance is that the respondent Staff Selection Commission (SSC for short) is not considering them as Central Government employees for the purpose of grant of age relaxation in appointment.
2. The brief facts in this case are that the applicant while working as Sub Inspector (Exe.) and Head Constable (Exe.) respectively in Delhi Police applied for the Combined Graduate Level Exam -2010 advertised by the SSC for various posts for which the maximum age limit was 27 years as on 2.3.2010. All the Central Government Civilian employees who have considered as departmental candidates were entitled for maximum age limit of 32 years in respect of unreserved category and up to 40 years for the reserved category. At the time of making the application for the aforesaid post, the applicant was above 27 years and, therefore, they sought age relaxation as departmental candidates as applicable to Central Govt. Civilian employees. In the selection process the applicants have passed both the Tier-I and Tier-II examination which qualified them to approach for the interview/skill test. However, on scrutiny of the application form of the applicant, respondent SSC did not allow them to be interviewed on the ground of over age stating that Delhi Police employees are not treated as Central Govt. Civilian employees. The contention of the applicants is that the aforesaid decision of the respondent SSC is contrary to the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rajni Dobhal vs. UOI, 2004 (111) DLT 732. The relevant part of which is as under:
7. In my considered view the aforesaid stand of the Union of India there remains no doubt that the petitioner is an employee of the Union of India and, thus, the flat allotted to the petitioner could not have been cancelled on account of the fact that the petitioner wrongly registered herself under the scheme or was not an employee of the Government of India. It may be noticed that full payment already stands made.
8. A writ of mandamus is issued quashing the cancellation of allotment of the petitioner vide order dated 30.6.1999 and rejecting the representation of the petitioner vide letter dated 22.7.1999 and respondents No; 2 and 3 are directed to give possession of Flat No. 187, Block No. 17, Sector 51, Phase-II, Noida to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today. In case this flat has been allotted to any third party, then another flat in the same area be given to the petitioner at the cost already paid by the petitioner.
9. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with cost of Rs. 5,000/- against respondents No. 2 and 3.
3. He has also relied upon another judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Surinder Nath vs. UOI, 1986 (2) ATR 418, the relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under:
5. It seems that while denying the Railway employees the status of Central Govt. Civilian Employees, respondents have totally missed out that by merely having a separate budget or by having separate Recruitment Board, Railway employees do not lose the status of being the Central Govt. Civilian employees. Respondents have also missed out the fact that the advertisement for the said examination has provided for age relaxation to be given to a large number of categories. The purpose of giving such age relaxation is to give additional time to those who were either denied the opportunity of taking such examination during the period of disturbance in J&K or because they were serving in the Army or in the Central Govt. or were belonging to the SC/ST or OBC categories or they were working in some Hydel Projects. The age relaxation to the Central Govt. Civilian employees is with the object of giving an opportunity to employees to improve their career even if at the relevant time they were not able to take the examination. The respondents have also missed out the fact that the Railway employees are regarded as Central Govt. employees because of which this Tribunal has jurisdiction over the service matters of the Railway employees. We are of the view that respondents have taken a very narrow view by saying that merely because the Railways have a separate budget or have separate Recruitment Board or have different recruitment rules or service conditions because of which they cannot be treated as Central Government Civilian Employees, which is not correct and we hold that Indian Railways is a department of Central govt. and its employees are also Central Govt. Civilian employees. The candidature of the applicants could not be rejected on the ground that they were overage on the cut off date as they were not Central Govt. civilian employees. Since the applicants were permitted to appear in the interview provisionally, we direct that their result be declared and if they have finally qualified and are in the merit list, they may be given appointment as per their merit and choice if no other selection process is required after qualifying the written test.
7. This OA is allowed and disposed of in terms of our findings and directions given above which be complied with within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
4. Learned counsel for respondents has refuted the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for applicant. He has submitted that Delhi Police employees are part of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and, therefore, they are not entitled to relaxation as per OM No.24012/22/2004 dated 30.12.2004, which is reproduced as under:
Subject- Sis in CPOs Examination Clarification regarding age relaxation for candidates working in Delhi Police Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No.3/4/2003-P&P-I (Vol.II) dated 10th November, 2004 on the above subject and to say that the matter was referred to Estt (D) Desk of this Department who have advised that persons serving in Delhi Police are not eligible for age relaxation as Departmental employee for appointment in Central Government posts. Similarly, employees of Government of Delhi are also not eligible.
5. He has also relied upon an order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-2394/2007 Abhinandan Kumar vs. UOI and others, wherein it has been held as under:
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.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the Annexure A-1 advertisement, the age limit for participating in the Combined Level Graduate Examination -2010 was 18 to 27 years but the same was relaxable to different categories including Central Government Civilian Employees. Applicants are admittedly working in Delhi Police. The issue under consideration is whether the employees of Delhi Police are Central Government Civilian Employees or not and same has already been clarified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension vide their aforesaid letter dated 30.12.2004 wherein it has been clearly held that the employees of the Delhi Police are not eligible for age relaxation as in the case of departmental employees for appointment in Central Government posts. By the said letter it has also been clarified that the employees of Government of Delhi are also not eligible for such relaxation. Based on the aforesaid office memorandum, this Tribunal has already considered the issue in the case of Abhinandan Kumar (supra) and held that Delhi Police is not a Central Government department as its superintendence and control is vested with the Lt. Governor of Delhi. The judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rajni Dhobals case (supra) and the Order of this Tribunal in the case of Surinder Nath (supra) relied upon by the counsel for applicant are not relevant, as the facts and circumstances of this case are different from those of the aforesaid two cases.
7. This OA has, therefore, no merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. A.K. Mishra ) ( George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
sd