Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Seema Kapoor vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 5 September, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA 3213/2017
New Delhi, this the 5th day of September, 2018
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member(J)
1. Seema Kapoor Age - 41 years
D/o Mr. Subhash Chander Kapoor Appointment - PGT English
R/o C-7B, Patel Garden, Street No. 2
Kakrola, New Delhi - 110059.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. N.K. Bhatnagar)
Versus
1. The Directorate of Education
Government of NCT of Delhi
Through its Director
Old Secretariat
Delhi - 110054.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Chairman
FC-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma, Delhi - 110092.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Sangeeta Rai and Mr. Pradeep Singh Tomar)
ORDER (ORAL)
Mr. K.N. Shrivastava:
The applicant is working as Teacher (Primary) in South Delhi Municipal Corporation (South DMC). A copy of appointment letter, appointing her as Teacher (Primary) dated 03.04.2006, has been placed on record (p.47). Pursuant to Annexure A-1 2 Advertisement No. 02/2012 of DSSSB, inviting applications for various posts, including the post of PGT (English) Female, Post Code 133/12, the applicant applied for the said post. The maximum age, prescribed for applying to the post of PGT (Female), as per Annexure A-1 Advertisement, was 36 years, relaxable by 5 years in case of Govt. servants and departmental candidates. The applicant‟s date of birth is 10.02.1976, as such, on the closing date of the receipt of the applications, i.e. 15.05.2012, she was about 36 years and four months old.
2. The applicant appeared in the written examination. The result was published vide Result Notice No. 448 dated 17.10.2017 (Annexure-4). The result of the applicant was not declared in the Result Notice. Qua the applicant, in the Result Notice, it is stated as under :-
"The candidature of candidate having Roll number 33000634 has been kept pending in UR category for clarification from concerned department5 for eligibility of age relaxation to the candidate."
3. The DSSSB, subsequently, vide Annexure A-6 Result Notice No. 525 dated 27.06.2017, clarified that age relaxation, as admissible to Govt. employees, is not applicable to persons working in Autonomous/Statutory bodies. Accordingly, such age relaxation is not admissible in the case of Ms. Seema Kapoor (Roll No. 33000634), i.e., the applicant, who is working in South DMC, 3 and, therefore, her candidature is rejected being over aged under UR category.
Aggrieved by the Annexure A-6 Result Notice, the applicant has approached the Tribunal in the instant OA, praying for the following reliefs :-
"8.1 To issue a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of Applicant and immediately grant the said age relaxation to the Applicant and offer her the said appointment pursuant to her qualifying the recruitment examination for the post of PGT-English, Post Code 133/12.
8.2 To pass an order directing the Respondents to fix the seniority and pay of the Applicant in accordance with that of other candidates of the same batch who joined service through the same Recruitment Notification.
8.3 To direct the Respondents to clearly earmark this policy for future reference and purposes specially with reference to the Education Department because a lot of Primary School teachers appear and qualify the Recruitment Examination of DSSSB seeking direct employment in Senior Secondary Schools and it should not become a practice on part of the Respondents to victimize such applicants on such flimsy grounds."
4. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply.
5. On completion of pleadings, the matter was taken up for hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. Arguments of Sh. N.K. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for applicant 4 and Ms. Sangeeta Rai, learned counsel for respondents were heard today.
6. The main contention of Sh. N.K. Bhatnagar was that the applicant is entitled for age relaxation of five years, as she is a departmental candidate. He drew our attention to a judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court dated 24.11.2006 in WP(C) No. 13782/ titled Sushil Kumar Rajput vs. Director of Education & Ors. The ratio deci dendi of the said judgment is as under :-
„The Municipal Corporation of Delhi will fall within ambit of "other government organization" and persons employed with MCD would be entitled to benefit of age relaxations like employees of "Government Organisation".‟
7. Per contra, Ms. Sangeeta Rai, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the Services Department of GNCTD vide its letter dated 20.12.2016 to DSSSB, has drawn attention to the DOP&T OM dated 27.03.2012, relevant part of which reads as under:
"These instructions (consolidated orders on relaxation in upper age limit allowed to various categories of government servants) are applicable only to Central Government Civilian Employees holding Civil posts and are not applicable to personnel working in autonomous/statutory bodies, Public Sector undertaking etc..."
8. She further stated that as held by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Sushil Kumar Rajput (supra), `MCD‟ is an „other government organization‟ and no instructions have been issued to 5 DSSSB regarding any such relaxation to „Other Government Organization‟ by the User Department for the Post Code 133/12. She further drew our attention to averments made in the reply that neither in the Recruitment Rules for the post nor has any instructions of DOP&T provide age relaxation to employees of „Other Government Organization‟. As such, the relaxation admissible to government servants, cannot be extended to employees of „Other Government Organization‟.
9. Ms. Rai also drew our attention to the judgment of this Tribunal dated 23.08.2008 in OA No. 711/2008 in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Vs. GNCT of Delhi, wherein it has been held as under :-
"10. Before we may part with this order, we may only mention that the applicant cannot take advantage of relaxation clause. Surely, because of the advertisement not giving any relaxation to employees of „Other government organizations‟ many others, situate as the applicant is, might have applied, but were deprived of applying. The applicant cannot be given an advantage of which others equally situate were deprived of. Further, if such employees as the applicant is, would have applied, surely the applicant would have faced far more stiff competition and may not have found place in select list."
10. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6
11. Admittedly, the applicant is working as Teacher (Primary) in South DMC. In regard to the status of MCD from which South DMC has been carved out in the year 2012, the Hon‟ble High Court in Sushil Kumar Rajput (supra) has clearly held that `MCD‟ falls under the ambit of „Other Government Organisation‟. Not only that, the judgment also squarely delineated that persons employed with MCD would be entitled to benefits of age relaxation like employees of „Other Government Organisation‟. Undisputedly, the said judgment applies to South DMC as well.
12. After going through the ibid judgment, it is absolutely clear that the employees of South DMC are fully entitled to the age relaxation, as admissible to employees of "other government organization/department".
13. In the conspectus, we allow this OA and issue the following directions to respondent No. 2:
a. Respondent No. 2 shall consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of PGT (English) Female, granting her age relaxation of five years, as available to the employees of government organizations/departments.
b. This shall be done within a period of six weeks.7
14. In view of (a) above, the interlocutory order dated 14.09.2017, granting interim relief by way of direction to keep one post of PGT (English) Female unfilled, stands vacated.
Let copy of this order be issued dasti to both parties.
(S.N. Terdal) (K.N. Shrivastava) Member (J) Member (A) /anjali/