Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Md Shahnawaz Alam vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 28 October, 2025
1
Item No. 41(C-IV)
O.A. No.4451/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.4451/2018
Order reserved on : 23.09.2025
Order pronounced on : 28.10.2025
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Md. Shahnawaz Alam,
S/o Md. Shafiqur Rahman,
R/o C-6/188, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053
Group „B‟
Sub:- Appointment
Age:- 42 years.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Rais Farooqui)
Versus
1. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB),
Through its Secretary/Chairman
Office at : FC-18, Industrial Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi.
2. Govt. Of NCT
Through its Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
3. South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Office at : Dr. Shyama Prashad Mukahrjee
Civic Centre, Zakir Hussain Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
4. North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner
2
Item No. 41(C-IV)
O.A. No.4451/2018
Office at : Dr. Shyama Prashad Mukahrjee
Civic Centre, Zakir Hussain Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
5. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner
Office At : CSIDC Building,
Patpar Ganj Industrial Area,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Tanmay Vashisht for Shri Amit
Anand for DSSSB and Ms. Anupama Bansal)
3
Item No. 41(C-IV)
O.A. No.4451/2018
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-
The applicant has filed the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief (s) :
"i) Quash the order No.F4(388)/DSSSB/CC-
I/2013/3077-81 dated 13.8.2018 passed by Deputy Secretary, CC-I, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)/ respondent no. 1;
ii) direct the respondents to give the benefit of age relaxation to the applicant and give the appointment to the applicant for the Post of Teacher (Primary-Urdu) for the Post Code 69/09 being eligible candidate having requisite qualification for the recruitment of Teacher (Primary-Urdu);
iii) pass a direction thereby directing to the respondents to give all consequential service benefits with respect to salaries, seniority and other benefits in favour of the applicant;
iv) Any other/further order(s) instruction(s) and direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents."
2.1 The brief facts of the case, as explained by the learned counsel for the applicant are that, pursuant to 4 Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018 Advertisement of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) No.004/2009 dated 29.12.2009, the applicant applied for the post of Teacher (Primary) (Urdu) under Post Code 69/09 (Annexure-A/2). 2.2 The respondents amended the recruitment rules, thereby extending the age of recruitment of the Primary Teacher from 27 years to 30 years besides deleting the percentage of marks and category from Group-C to Group B, vide Corrigendum dated 13.09.2011 to the various post codes and to the exclusion of the Post Code 69/09, under which the applicant had applied.
2.3 The examination was conducted by the respondents on 28.04.2013 and the result was declared for the Post Code 69/09 on 01.03.2014 for both the selected as well as the rejected candidates. The candidature of the applicant was rejected only on the ground of „overage‟. However, the applicant secured requisite marks than the last selected candidate under the UR category. The last selected candidate obtained 95 marks under the UR category, however, the applicant obtained 101.25 marks under 5 Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018 the UR category but his case is rejected on the ground of „overage‟.
2.4 He further submitted that Lt. Governor was pleased to grant one time relaxation in age to 347 contract teachers vide orders dated 25.05.2010 for advertisement No.004/09 to the post of Primary Teacher and the examination was supposed to be conducted in the year 2010, however, the respondents conducted the examination in the year 2013. The order dated 25.05.2010 was questioned by the candidates whose names were not included in the list of 347 candidates by filing an OA No.714/2009 before the Tribunal. The said OA was allowed on 20.08.2010. The operative portion of the said order of the Tribunal reads as under :-
"8. In our considered view, Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not discriminate between the two persons forming the same class. Once in case of contract Teachers relaxation is given by the Lieutenant Governor, the said relaxation though may not be claimed as a matter of right but when denied without any basis to the applicants, cannot be countenanced. Relaxation though cannot be deemed but once it has been given to similarly circumstanced, the Lieutenant Governor cannot restrict the relaxation by 6 Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018 observing that it would not be treated as a precedent in future, as Article 142 of the Constitution of India is not enjoyed by the Lieutenant Governor on an administrative or even quasi-judicial side.
9. In this view of the matter, apart from the dicta in Parul Dhingra's case (supra) covering the present OA on all fours, non- grant of relaxation to the applicants by the Lieutenant Governor is a discrimination meted out to the applicants in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. Resultantly, OA is allowed. Respondents are directed to declare the result of applicants and as per their result on age relaxation be offered appointments as Primary Teachers within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
2.5 The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondents before the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.1641/2011 titled Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Vs. Preeti Rathi & Ors. and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2011. Relevant portion of the Writ Petition No.1641/2011 reads as under :-
"13. In the rules, nowhere the expression "departmental candidates" has been defined. It has to be, in these circumstances, assigned natural connotation. A departmental candidate would be the candidate who is not an 7 Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018 outsider but is already working in the concerned department namely MCD in the instant case. Admittedly the respondents are working in MCD as Primary Teachers on contract basis and one has to assign practical meaning to the aforesaid terminology and we are of the considered opinion that the respondents shall be treated as departmental candidates for the purpose of appointment to the post of Primary Teachers on regular basis when they are already working in the same post on ad-hoc basis for the last ten years. Reference may be made to UPSC v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup (2008) 11 SCC 10 where the expression "employees of MCD" in the advertisement granting age relaxation with respect to recruitment to the post of Ayurvedic Vaids was held to include both permanent or temporary, regular or short term contractual or ad hoc employees of the MCD. Accordingly those appointed on contract basis were held to be employees of MCD and entitled to age relaxation. The earlier judgment in UPSC v Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela (2006) 2 SCC 482 relating to Government employees was held to be not applicable to the expression "employees of MCD". We see no reason why the said dicta of the Supreme Court be not applied to the present situation also.
14. Even in those matters whether cases of ad-hoc/casual/contract employees come up for consideration for regular appointment, there has always been a practice of giving age relaxation. In many judgments rendered by the Apex Court as well as this Court such relaxation is provided and the relevant aspect which is to be kept in mind is that at the time of initial appointment on contract/casual basis the incumbent was within the age limit and was not overage. If that is so, to 8 Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018 the extent of service rendered by such an employee, the benefit thereof has to be given. If the relaxation of almost 10 years is to be given to the respondents for having worked for this period, in that case also they would fall within the prescribed age limit."
2.6 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is working with the respondents since 2005 and being a departmental candidate, he was entitled for at least one time age relaxation on the order of the Lt. Governor substantiated by the order of this Tribunal in aforesaid OA No.714/2009 being upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi. The applicant preferred representation to the respondents dated 03.03.2014, however, the same was not responded to. Aggrieved, the applicant filed OA No.1096/2014 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of on 31.03.2014, with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant. In pursuance to the same, the respondents passed an order dated 17.07.2014, deciding the representation of the applicant, as per the order of the Tribunal, rejecting his candidature under Post Code 69/09.
9Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018 2.7 Aggrieved by his rejection, the applicant preferred another OA No.3012/2014 jointly with another applicant. The said OA was allowed on 27.10.2016 with certain directions including that of considering him for grant of age relaxation. Non- compliance of the said order in OA No.3012/2014 led the applicants to file Contempt Petition No.696/2017. The respondents filed compliance affidavit to the said Contempt Petition along with impugned order dated 13.08.2018, whereby the case of the applicant was once again rejected on the ground of „over age‟ while the benefit of age relaxation was granted to another applicant in OA No.3012/2014, namely, Mohd. Tariq. Resultantly, the CP was closed with liberty to the instant applicant to challenge the order dated 13.08.2018, passed by the respondents. Hence, the present OA.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contentions, relied upon the following judicial pronouncements :-
(i) Union Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Jamuna Kurup and Others (2008) 11 SCC 10.
Reliance is placed on para 14 of the judgment. 10 Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018
(ii) Writ Petition No.(C) 11008/2023 before the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of DSSSB Vs. Ravi Kumar & Anr. Reliance is placed on para 14 of the judgment.
4.1 Pursuant to notice, the respondents appeared and filed replies opposing the OA. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the candidature of the applicant was rejected because he was overage on the cut off date i.e. 15.01.2010. She further submitted that even after giving age relaxation under the departmental candidate, he was still overage. She further submitted that the applicant rendered total service of 3 years 6 months and 06 days on contractual basis in MCD as on the cut off date i.e. 15.01.2010. Hence, he was eligible for age relaxation of 3 years 6 months and 06 days. Since his age on the cutoff date was 33 years 9 months and 15 days, even after granting age relaxation, he was overage by 3 months and 09 days as the age limit under the UR category was 30 years and, therefore, his case was rejected.
11Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018 4.2 Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the applicant claimed age relaxation as a departmental candidate and as per the order of the Addl. Dy. Commissioner of MCD, the criteria for the age relaxation in respect of the contract teachers was that "If a contract teacher has worked for one year he will be given age relaxation for one year and if for two years, age relaxation for two years and so on." As the applicant served for 3 years 6 months and 06 days with the respondent MCD as contractual teacher upto the cutoff date, as per the aforesaid order, he was eligible for relaxation of age for 3 years 6 months and 06 days, which he was granted, but since the age limit under UR category was 30 years and he was more than that age limit even after granting age relaxation, he was not eligible to be considered. 4.3 So far as granting age relaxation to Mr. Mohd. Tariq, learned counsel for respondents submitted that as on the cutoff date i.e. 15.01.2010, his age was 30 years and 16 days. Being an OBC candidate, he was granted age relaxation of 3 years. Thus, he was 12 Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018 overage by 16 days. Since he served the Corporation for 2 years, 7 months and 13 days as on the cutoff date, he was given age relaxation as a departmental candidate also, and, therefore, he was well within the age limit and eligible.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
6. We have perused the entire pleadings made by the applicant in the present OA vis-a-vis the order dated 27.10.2016, passed by this Tribunal in OA No.3012/2014 titled as Moh. Tariq and Mohd. Shahnawaz Alam Vs. DSSSB & Ors. It is admitted fact that the applicant of the present OA was also one of the applicant in OA No.3012/2014 which was decided by this Tribunal vide its order dated 27.10.2016. The pleadings and grounds including the relied upon judgments cited in the present OA are exactly same and similar to the contentions mentioned in the decision dated 27.10.2016 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.3012/2014. The operative 13 Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018 portion of the order dated 27.10.2016 is reproduced below :-
"7. After having given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, as appearing from the materials available on record, in the light of the decisions referred to above, we have no hesitation in holding that the applicants are entitled to be given age relaxation by respondent no.2 for the period they had worked as Contract Teachers under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi up to the cut-off date, i.e., 15.1.2010. The Hon'ble Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi or, for that matter, the Government of NCT of Delhi, is the competent authority to grant such age relaxation to the applicants. The applicants have not placed before this Tribunal any material to show that they had ever made any representation to the Hon'ble Lt.Governor of NCT of Delhi or to the Chief Secretary to the Government of NCT of Delhi (respondent no.2) to grant age relaxation to them for the period they had worked as Contract Teachers under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi up to the cut-off date, i.e., 15.1.2010. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we think that the ends of justice would be met if we dispose of the present O.A. by issuing the following directions:
(1) If the applicants make appropriate representations within one month from today requesting respondent no.2 to grant them age relaxation for the period of their working as Contract Teachers under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi up to the cut-off date, i.e., 15.1.2010, respondent no.2 shall call upon respondent nos. 3 to 5 to examine their records and furnish a 14 Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018 report to respondent no.2 as to the exact period of engagement of the applicants as Contract Teachers under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi up to the cut-off date, i.e., 15.1.2010;
(2) Respondent nos.3 to 5 shall examine their records and submit, within one month from the date of receipt of intimation from respondent no.2, a report to respondent no.2 as to the exact period of engagement of the applicants as Teachers on contract basis up to the cut- off date, i.e., 15.1.2010;
(3) Respondent no.2 shall, within one month from the date of receipt of the above report from respondent nos. 3 to 5, issue appropriate order regarding grant of age relaxation to the applicants corresponding to the period they had worked as contractual Teachers under the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi up to the cut-off date, i.e., 15.1.2010;
(4) Respondent no.2 shall forthwith communicate the above order to the applicants and respondent no.1;
(5) Taking into consideration the report to be submitted by respondent nos. 3 to 5, and the order to be issued by respondent no.2 (as directed in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) above), respondent no.1-DSSSB shall take appropriate decision in the case of the applicants within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order from respondent no.2,
8. Resultantly, the O.A. is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs." 15 Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018
7. Since all the contentions and the grounds taken by the applicant in present OA have already been taken in the earlier OA No.3012/2014 which has been finally decided by this Tribunal vide its order dated 27.10.2016, we could not entertain the present OA as Review Application to the order dated 27.10.2016 passed in the OA No.3012/2014 and, therefore, the entire pleadings made in this OA by the applicant are barred by principles of res-judicata.
8. However, only one new ground has been taken by the applicant i.e. the applicant has challenged the reasonableness of the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the respondents in pursuance to the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.3012/2014.
9. The date of birth of the applicant is 01.04.1976 and he belongs to unreserved category. Cut off date in this case is 15.01.2010. As per MCD record, the applicant rendered service for total 3 years 6 months and 06 days as contractual teacher in MCD on the cut off date i.e. 15.01.2010. Thus, as per order dated 16 Item No. 41(C-IV) O.A. No.4451/2018 27.10.2016 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.3012/2014, the applicant was eligible for upper age relaxation of 3 years 6 months and 06 days. The age of the applicant as on the cut off date was 33 years 09 months and 09 days and, thus the applicant is overage by 3 months and 09 days as the age limit for unreserved candidate was 30 years.
10. In view of the above, we do not find any apparent error in the impugned order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the respondents and, therefore, we are declining to interfere in the said order. The present OA deserves to be dismissed and as a result thereof the OA is dismissed.
11. All pending MA(s), if any, are also disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
'rk'