Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Neeru Pahuja vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 27 September, 2024
1
OA No.1582/19
(Ct-4)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
OA No.1582/2019
Order reserved on 03.09.2024
Order pronounced on 27.09.2024
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)
Neeru Pahuja, D/o B.S. Pahuja
Age 46 years
Category Gen
Applied for Domestic Science Teacher (92/17)
Roll No.2710000733
R/o 262, 2nd Floor, Sector-5
Vaishali, Ghaziabad, UP
...Applicant
(By Advocate: None)
Vs.
1. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
Through its Chairman/Secretary
FC-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.
2. Govt. of NCT Delhi
Directorate of Education
Old Secretariat Building
Vidhan Sabha, Delhi-110054.
..Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Harkesh Parashar for Mr. Jagdish
N.)
2
OA No.1582/19
(Ct-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J) The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
"In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to give the age relaxation to the applicant, to put the applicant at par with the other women candidates for the post code 92/17 under advertisement no. 04/17 and to further process the result of the applicant accordingly and appoint her, to the post of Domestic Science Teacher, Post Code 92/17 in Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi, in accordance with her merit position with all consequential benefit such as seniority, pay fixation, etc. and any other or further order/relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in favour of the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement No.04/2017 published by respondent No.1 i.e. DSSSB for recruitment to various posts. The applicant applied against vacancies for Domestic Science Teacher under Post Code 92/17. According to the submissions made in the OA, the applicant participated in the examination and secured 95 marks and fell in the selection zone, since the cut of marks under the UR category for post code 92/17 is 80. This Tribunal vide an Order dated 23.10.2018, passed in OA No.517/2018 and batch, wherein the applicant 3 OA No.1582/19 (Ct-4) was also a party disposed of the OA directing the respondents to intimate the candidates who were in the 'selection zone' but the applicant, was not informed. Thereafter, the applicant submitted representation dated 01.02.2019 which was decided by the respondents vide order dated 06.02.2019 informing the applicant that she is overage and hence, ineligible as per the prevalent recruitment rules. The applicant filed another representation to the respondents dated 26.02.2019. The request of the applicant seeking ten years relaxation was rejected. Pertinent to note that nine years of relaxation in age has been granted to her on account of her being a widow and for working as Guest Teacher since 20.09.2013. The applicant has challenged the said order rejecting her request for age relaxation in the present OA.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while drawing attention to the impugned order dated 08.04.2019/07.05.2019 has submitted that in terms of advertisement 04/2017, age relaxation is available to Guest teachers for a maximum period of 05 years 4 OA No.1582/19 (Ct-4) and is applicable for the academic years 2012-2013 to 2016-2017. However, the applicant had served the respondents as guest teacher for 04 years i.e. w.e.f 2013-14 and 2016-17 as such, the period from 2017- 18 and 2018-19 was not counted for grant of age relaxation. Further, age relaxation upto the age of 35 years for widow candidate is also applicable as per DoPT guidelines. However, age relaxation of ten years for women candidates as claimed by the applicant cannot be granted as there is no such provision in recruitment rules. After considering the applicant as a widow candidate by granting age relaxation upto 35 years and her experience as guest teacher for 04 years the applicant is still over age by 6 years 05 months and 07 days, therefore, her candidature for the post of Domestic Science Teacher, Post Code 92/17 had been rejected for being overage.
4. Reliance is placed upon the Order dated 28.04.2017 passed by this Tribunal in similar circumstances in OA No.1430/2017 wherein this 5 OA No.1582/19 (Ct-4) Tribunal dismissed the OA with the following directions:-
"3. Learned counsel for the applicants had argued that the applicants were seeking age relaxation as female candidates in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1035/2014 (Asha Vs. GNCTD & Ors.) dated 22.08.2014. We have, however, dealt with this issue in our judgment, the relevant paras are 17 to 20, which read as follows:-
"17. The applicants have also argued that age relaxation of 10 years given to female candidates in all other posts had not been extended to Physical Education Teachers. The respondents have explained this difference by saying that such relaxation is not provided under DOP&T guidelines for Group-B posts. Since the amended recruitment rules for the post of Physical Education Teachers have been framed in accordance with the DOP&T guidelines, it was consciously decided not to grant this relaxation, despite the Notification dated 01.11.1980 of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi. Thus, it was not an omission or a lapse on part of the respondents but a conscious decision not to grant this relaxation. Non-grant of this relaxation does not vitiate the rules. Moreover, it is exclusively upto the Executive and the Legislature to decide the manner in which recruitment rules are to be framed.
18. In this regard, we place reliance on the judgment in the case of Sachin Gupta (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that it is upto the employer to decide the age limit and academic suitability of candidates which he wishes to employ. Merely because the provisions under the rules make some candidates ineligible cannot be a ground to challenge the rules. For several posts, minimum and maximum age limits are prescribed by different authorities along with the required academic qualifications. Further, Hon'ble High Court has held that prescribing any age for a given post was a matter of policy and rules framed under proviso to Article 309 cannot be termed as arbitrary or un-reasonable merely because different age limits have been prescribed.
19. As regards the argument of the applicants that the Notification dated 01.11.1980 of the Lt. Governor has not been followed by the respondents while framing amended recruitment rules for the post of Physical Education Teachers in the same judgement the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that since these recruitment rules have been approved by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor 6 OA No.1582/19 (Ct-4) of Delhi, who had also issued the Notification dated 01.11.1980, it would mean that the said Notification stands impliedly repealed.
20. The applicants have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Asha (supra). On going through this judgment, we find that Hon'ble High Court had ruled that the Notification dated 01.11.1980 regarding giving age relaxation of 10 years to female candidates was also applicable to the post of Librarian.
However, in our opinion, this judgement does not help the applicants at all as we have already come to the conclusion that it was not necessary for the respondents to follow this Notification when amended recruitment rules were framed."
4. In our opinion, this case is squarely covered by our judgment in OA-429/2015. Hence, we dismiss this O.A. in limine."
5. The aforesaid Order passed in batch of OAs was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No.7240/2017 Raj Bala and Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the High Court vide judgment dated 23.08.2017 had dismissed the Writ Petition with the following directions:-
"18. The relaxation granted to women candidates by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor vide notification dated 01.11.1980 in exercise of powers under Rules 43 of the Delhi School Education Rules was granted when the pre- existing rules were in force. With the enforcement of the amended Rules of 2011 in respect of recruitment of PETs, in our view, it could not be said that the said relaxation continued when the amended Recruitment Rules, in no uncertain terms place an upper age limit of "not exceeding 30 years" and neither the Rules of 2011, nor the DoPT instructions/guidelines provide any age relaxation to women candidates.
19. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in the petition and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their respective costs."
Hence, the OA deserves to be dismissed. 7 OA No.1582/19 (Ct-4)
6. It is seen that despite repeated opportunities, none appeared on behalf of the applicant. Since a question of settled law is raised in the present OA, we took up the matter for hearing and perused the records available on record. We have also heard the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. In terms of judgment dated 23.08.2017 passed by Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No.7240/2017 in the matter of Raj Bala and Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi the issue of relaxation of ten years to women candidates was dealt with in detail and the High Court was of the opinion that such relaxation cannot be granted to each and every category of teachers.
8. It is our considered view, that terms of recruitment have always been mentioned in the recruitment rules for each and every post. Once no such relaxation is given in the rules, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The amended RR's of 2011 do not provide for age relaxation hence de hors the rules no relaxation over and above already granted to the applicant can be claimed. 8 OA No.1582/19 (Ct-4)
9. The OA is dismissed accordingly. MA, if any, also stands dismissed.
11. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member(A) Member(J) /vb/