Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar vs Govt. Of Nctd on 7 February, 2025
1
Item 43 OA No.1840/2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.1840/2016
Order Reserved on:20.01.2025
Order Pronounced on :07.02.2025
:
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Anil Kumar
Librarian
Aged about 39 years
S/o Sh. Baljeet Singh
R/o E-5/258,
5/258, Nehru Vihar, DayalPur
Delhi - 110 094.
094
2. Deepak Kumar
Librarian
Aged about 41 years
S/o Sh. Ranjeet Singh
R/o H.No.1058, Sec.3, Urban Estate
Kurukshetra, Haryana. ...Applicants
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj for applicant no.1 and
Mr. Amrit Singh Khalsa for applicant no.2)
VERSUS
Govt. of NCT of Delhi &Ors. through
1. The Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
New Secretariat, I.P. Estate
New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
Through its Chairman
FC-18,
18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma, Delhi.
3. The Directorate of Education
Govt of NCT of Delhi
2
Item 43 OA No.1840/2016
Through its Director
5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms.Purnima Maheshwari)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
The applicants, aspirants for appointment to the post of Librarian, are aggrieved by the arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondent-DSSSB in not selecting them for appointment to the said post against Post Code No.02/2013 despite being declared qualified.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent-DSSSB issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Librarian under Post Code No.02/2013 in the Directorate of Education of Govt of NCT of Delhi. The applicants, who were already serving as a Librarian in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Ministry of HRD, and were meeting the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the said advertisement, applied pursuant to said advertisement under SC category through proper channel. The candidature of the applicants was duly accepted by the respondent-DSSSB.
3Item 43 OA No.1840/2016
3. After scrutinizing the applications received, the respondents issued the list of eligible candidates. The applicants' names were also included in the said eligibility list. Thereafter, the respondents issued admit cards to the applicants. As per the admit card, they appeared in the written test held on 31.08.2014 and performed well. Both the applicants were declared successful and were directed to appear for document verification vide notice dated 03.02.2015.
4. The grievance of applicant no.1 was that he was not even given the opportunity to submit all original documents as per the aforesaid notice. Therefore, the said applicant submitted a representation on 24.02.2016 and requested to verify his all original documents. The respondents accepted the said representation and were satisfied with the eligibility of the applicant and the only formality remaining was verification of documents, the same was also completed. However, all of a sudden vide notice dated 14.03.2016, the respondents rejected the candidature of applicants on the grounds of being overage. Both the applicants were shocked to receive the aforesaid notice as the said stand taken by the respondents 4 Item 43 OA No.1840/2016 was not correct. Furthermore, respondent no.2 had scrutinized the documents of all the successful candidates and included their names in the list of eligible candidates. They submit that if the respondents found them overage, they would have included their names in the rejection notice issued before calling them to submit original documents. Since the objection raised by the respondents regarding age was misconceived, therefore, the applicants approached the concerned officer and explained that they were well within the age limit.
5. Counsel for the applicants submits that after getting 10 years of relaxation as per DOP&T instructions as well as the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement wherein it has been mentioned that age relaxation shall be given as per Govt. of India instructions, the applicants were well within the prescribed age. He further submits that Scheduled Caste Central Govt. Employee are entitled for age relaxation upto 10 years being departmental SC candidates and that the respondent no.2 has granted age relaxation to departmental SC candidates in all other recruitments as evident from the advertisements issued time to time. The respondents have not 5 Item 43 OA No.1840/2016 considered the said aspect of the matter and rejected the candidature of both applicants. He submits that the applicants are well covered within the prescribed age limit. However, the respondents have arbitrarily declared them as overage. Therefore, the applicants filed the present OA seeking the following relief(s) :-
"1) To declare the action of respondents in declaring the applicants overage for appointment to the post of Librarian, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to consider the candidature of applicants as valid being within age and process their case for selection and consequential appointment.
ii) To declare the action of respondents in not granting age relaxation to applicants as available for Govt.
Servant SC category candidates as illegal & arbitrary and direct the respondents to grant 10 years age relaxation to the applicants as per DOP&T instructions and law on the subject and process their case for appointment to the post of Librarian pursuant to advertisement no. 01/2013.
iii) To direct the respondents to consider the applicants for selection and appointment to the post of Librarian, Directorate of Education against post code no. 02/13 by giving age relaxation of 10 years being Librarian in NVS, Ministry of HRD and SC category candidates with all consequential benefits.
iv) To allow the O.A. with costs
v) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants." 6 Item 43 OA No.1840/2016
6. On issuance of notice, respondents have filed their counter affidavit. Respondents have stated that as per the RR provided by the user Department, essential qualifications are as under:-
"1. Degree from a recognized university or equivalent
2. Bachelor Degree or equivalent diploma in Library Science from a recognized university/institute or equivalent.
3. Experience of two years in Library/computerization of a Library or oneyear certificate in computer application from a recognized institute or equivalent."
7. Respondents submitted that according to the RR provided by the user department, the age limit is as under:-
"30 years (relaxable to SC-5 years, OBC-03 years, PH-10 years, PH&SC-15 years, PH&OBC-13 years, Departmental candidate/Govt. Employees 05 years the age relaxation as admissible to such Govt. servants as are working in post which are in the same line or allied cadre and where the relationship could be established that the service already rendered in a particular post will be useful for the effective discharge of the duties of the posts recruitment to which has been advertised."
8. Counsel for the respondents submitted that DSSSB conducted the written examination on 31.08.2014 and directed the candidates to appear for the submission of verification of documents. During verification it was observed that the applicants did not fulfil the requisite terms and 7 Item 43 OA No.1840/2016 conditions of RR, as they exceeded the prescribed age limit. Furthermore, since both candidates were employed in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, an autonomous Body, they were not entitled to age relaxation applicable to government employees.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.
10. Counsel for the respondents, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection that the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is not a govt. rather the same is an autonomous body and therefore service rendered therein is not eligible for consideration for age relaxation. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.2120/2020 titled Poonam Chaudhary Vs. Govt. of NCT and others dated 02.02.2024. The relevant para 10 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"10. The applicant belongs to OBC category. Admittedly on the cutoff date, she was over aged by 7 years, 07 months and 08 days. By virtue of being an OBC candidate, she was entitled to age relaxation of 3 years but even after granting the same, she was still over aged by 4 years 7 months and 8 days. Therefore, she has claimed remaining age relaxation for the number of years (subject a maximum of 5 8 Item 43 OA No.1840/2016 years) she has been on contractual employment with SCERT. The respondents have rejected the candidature of the applicant on the ground that her working on contractual basis was with SCERT and not with the Directorate of Education. To clarify, the advertisement notice itself finds mention under the Post code 95/17 page 30 of the paper book that the guest/contract teacher relaxation in upper age was extended as a one-time measure up to the actual time spent as a guest/contractual teacher in the Directorate of Education, subject to a maximum of five years. The issue before is whether the employment of the applicant on contractual basis with SCERT would be rendered as per employment with the Directorate of Education or not. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken us through the record in support of her claim. She has primarily argued that SCERT is a creation of the State, though an autonomous body under the Societies Registration Act in May 1988. It receives its funds from GNCT of Delhi under the Grants-in-Aid Scheme. The Directorate of Education in in fact the administrative department of SCERT and, therefore, is part of the GNCTD for obvious reasons as explained by her."
11. Respondents stated that applicants have been granted age relaxation as applicable to them being SC candidates. However, they are still over aged. They are seeking age relaxation owing to their service in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. There is no dispute that the applicants were working as a Librarian in the Samiti therefore they were in an allied cadre however the Samiti is neither a State nor a Central Govt School, therefore, the applicants cannot be granted age relaxation as a departmental candidate. Like the SCERT the 9 Item 43 OA No.1840/2016 Samiti miti is also an autonomous body, receiving funds from the Central Govt., yet it remains an independent autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act. Consequently, it cannot be considered a part of the Central Government.. Therefore applicants cannot be considered departmental candidates and granted Age Relaxation for the service rendered by them in the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.
Samiti
12. Accordingly, the present OA lacks merit and is dismissed. No costs.
( Dr. Sumeet Jerath ) ( Harvinder Kau
Kaur Oberoi )
Member (A) Member (J)
/uma/