Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Vijay Sherwal vs Govt. Of Nctd on 17 February, 2020

                           1                             OA 465/2020



       CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
          PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI

                   OA No. 465/2020

     New Delhi, this the 17th day of February, 2020


HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE VIJAY LAKSHMI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. PRADEEP KUMAR, MEMBER (A)


 Vijay Sherwal, Age-36 years, Sub-Appointment/Group-B/PGT
 S/o Sh. Dharamvir Singh Sherwal
 R/o E-89, Street No. 4, Ashok Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi
                                           ......Applicant
 (By advocate: Mr. U Srivastava)


                         Versus



 1. Govt. of NCT Delhi through the Chief Secretary,
 Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi.

 2. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
 Through its Chairman, Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
 F-18, Karkardooma, Institutional Area, Delhi-92.

 3. The Director of Education, Directorate of Education
 Delhi Admn., Old Secretariat, Near Vidhan Sabha,
 Civil Lines, New Delhi, Delhi-110054     ......Respondents

 (By advocate : None)




                  O R D E R (O R A L)

Mr Pradeep Kumar, Member (A) :-

1.0 Mr U Srivastava, learned counsel appeared for the applicant. The applicant wanted to apply against the 2 OA 465/2020 vacancy notice vide advertisement no 04/20 dated 04.01.2020 issued by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) against post code 70/20 for PGT (Computer Science) Male and against the Post code 91/20 for the post of TGT (Computer Science) . The prescribed age limit in respect of both these post codes in the said advertisement reads as maximum age to be 30 years subject to certain relaxations as per table at Para 6 of said notification closing date is 23.02.2020.

2.0 The applicant pleads that for some other posts the maximum permissible age is 36 years instead of 30 years. Accordingly, for these two posts also the maximum age should be 36 years. He made a representation dated 11.02.2020 to DSSSB which is not replied yet. Feeling aggrieved, he filed this OA.

3.0 Matter has been heard at admission stage. Prescription of eligibility requirement is a policy decision which lies in the domain of the indenting departments. In this advertisement different posts have different age criteria. The Tribunal does not find any justification to intervene with the prescribed eligibility criteria in the said advertisement.

3 OA 465/2020

4.0 OA is dismissed at admission stage being devoid of merit. No costs.





        (Pradeep Kumar)                  (Justice Vijay Lakshmi)
          Member (A)                          Member (J)



neetu