Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Meena Kumari W/O Sh. Ranjit Malhotra vs Union Of India & Others Has Been Filed. ... on 15 May, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A.No.1176-HP-2012 Pronounced on: 15.5.2013 Reserved on : 13.05.2013 CORAM: HONBLE MR. RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER (A) & HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (A) Meena Kumari W/o Sh. Ranjit Malhotra, aged 31 years, R/o C/o Sh. Babu Ram, Village Yol Khas, Near Cantt Board Colony, Tehsil Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra (H.P). Applicant By : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate. 1.Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Army HQ, New Delhi. 2.The Chief of Army Staff, Army HQ, New Delhi. 3.Director General of Medical Services (Army) Army HQ, New Delhi. 4.The Commanding Officer, Military Hospital, Yol Cantt, Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra (HP). By : Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate. Respondents O R D E R
HONBLE RANBIR SINGH , MEMBER (A) An advertisement was issued by the respondents for recruitment of a Safaiwala in Military Hospital, Yol Cantt. It was stated in the advertisement that one post is for general category and one post is for the other Backward Castes. It was also stated that as on 28.9.2012 the candidate should be between 18 to 25 years of age in respect of the general category and between 18 to 28 years of age in respect of the Other Backward Castes. The applicant had also applied for the post. She belongs to the S.C. category. In the application she has mentioned that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste. On enquiry the applicant learnt that she was not considered for appointment as she was over-age.
2. The relief sought in this case is as follows :-
(i) That the Advertisement Annexure A-4 be quashed so far as it prescribes wrong age of 18-28 years for recruitment to the post of Safaiwala which is contrary to the instructions Annexure A 7 which prescribes the age of recruitment in case of Group D post is 18-27 years with further relaxation upto 5 years in case of SC candidates.
ii) That the respondents be directed to consider the applicant for Test / Interview for the post of Safaiwala which is now scheduled for 19.10.2012.
iii) That the respondents be further directed not to declare the result for the post of Safaiwala after taking the Test / Interview till the decision of the instant case.
3. The applicant had also sought following interim relief :
Director the respondent No. 4 to issued interview letter to the applicant and permit her to appear in the Test / Interview for the post of Safaiwala on 19.10.2012 along with other candidates and not to declare the final result till the decision of the instant case.
4. On 12.10.2012 this Tribunal had passed an order granting interim relief to the effect that the applicant be allowed to appear in the relevant selection process provisionally.
5. It has been stated in the O.A. that the applicant was working on the post of Safaiwala since January, 2011. She fulfilled all the eligibility conditions. Her date of birth is 24.7.1981. Relaxation of 5 years has been provided to SC candidates in respect of Group D post for which normal age is 18 to 27 years.
6. The respondents have filed a common reply statement. There is contradiction in the reply statement. In para 1, it is stated that the advertisement is in accordance with the Recruitment Rules prescribed for the post vide SRO No. 70 dated 26th November, 2011. It has been stated in Para 4 (vi) that a copy of the Recruitment Rules is annexed herewith as Annexure A/7. However, Annexure A-7 is not a copy of the recruitment rules, but of the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts Upper Age Limit of Direct Recruitment Rules, 1998. In the advertisement the prescribed age limit for direct recruit is 18 to 25 years for general candidates and 17 to 28 years for OBC candidates. The cut of date to determine the age was 28th September, 2012. As per DoPT O.M. No. 36011/1/98/Estt. (Res) dated 1st July, 1998 when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting an SC/ST/OBC candidate for example in age limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination, extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general category candidates etc. H SC/ST/OBC are to be counted against reserved vacancies. Such candidates would to be as unavailable for consideration against un-reserved vacancies. Since the vacancies were for un-reserved and OBC category, the applicant was not entitled to age relaxation as per the aforesaid Circular of DoPT.
7. Along with the O.A. a copy of order dated 4.7.2012 of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 1052-HP-2011 Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others has been filed. The applicant has filed a rejoinder and furnished a copy of the order dated 11.1.2013 of this Tribunal passed in R.A. No. 94/12 and M.A.No. 1126/12 in O.A.No. 1052-HP-2011- Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India etc.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.
9. The issue for consideration is whether a SC candidate is entitled to age relaxation while being considered for a general category post. In 2010 (1) SLR, Page 526 Jitender Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others decided on 8.1.2010 it has been held as under :
52. From the above it becomes quite apparent that the relaxation in age limit is merely to enable the reserved category candidate to compete with the general category candidate, all other things being equal. The State has not treated the relaxation in age and fee as relaxation in the standard for selection, based on the merit of the candidate in the selection test i.e. Main Written Test followed by Interview. Therefore, such relaxations cannot deprive a reserved category candidate of the right to be considered as a general category candidate on the basis of merit in the competitive examination. Xxxxxxxx In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the & level playing field. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It commences when all the candidates who fulfill the eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs.
10. In O.A. No. 1052-HP-2011 Suresh Kumar Vs. UOI etc. decided on 4.7.2012 by this Tribunal has held as under :-
The grant of age relaxation would not appear to have anything to do with the fact whether the post applied for is a reserved post or unreserved post. The age relaxation, as we understand, is a benefit which attaches to a candidate by virtue of his belonging to a reserved category. While considering entitlement to apply for an appointment against an unreserved post, he would be entitled to ask for age- relaxation which is available to a reserved category candidate.
11. Therefore, this O.A. is allowed as follows :-
The applicant is entitled to the age relaxation available to a SC candidate for being considered for the general category post of Safaiwala.
12. No costs.
(RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER(A) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 15.5.2013 HC*