Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Simplejit Kaur vs Govt. Medical College, Chandigarh on 15 November, 2017
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION N0.060/00075/2017
Chandigarh, this the15th day of November, 2017
...
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J) &
HON'BLE Ms. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER (A)
Simplejit Kaur aged about 32 years (Group B) wife of Manmohan
Singh, resident of H. No. 62, Sector 29-A, Chandigarh.
....Applicant
(Argued by: Mr. A.S. Jawandha, Advocate)
VERSUS
1. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh through its
Administrator, U.T. Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. Finance Secretary, U.T. Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Secretary, Department of Personnel, U.T. Chandigarh, Sector
9, Chandigarh.
4. Director, Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32,
Chandigarh.
5. Neha Chopra D/o Sh. Ashwani Chopra, r/o H. No. 876, Gilco
Heights, Sec 127, Gilco Valley, Greater Mohali, Distt. Mohali,
(Punjab).
....Respondents
(Argued by: Mr.Rajesh Punj, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 4
Mr. Chandan Deep Singh, Advocate for Resp. No. 5)
ORDER (Oral)
JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J)
1. The challenge in the instant Original Application (O.A.), instituted by applicant Simplejit Kaur wife of Manmohan Singh, is to the impugned select list dated 04.01.2017 (Annexure A-7), wherein her name was not included, for recruitment to the post of Assistant Clinical Psychologist, in the Government Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh (in short, GMCH, Chandigarh).
2. The matrix of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant O.A., and exposited from the record, is that
-2- O.A. No. 060/00075/2017 the respondents had advertised and invited online applications for recruitment to the various posts, including the post of Assistant Clinical Psychologist, vide advertisement dated 11.08.2016 (Annexure A-1). In pursuance thereof, the applicant applied for the post of Assistant Clinical Psychologist under the general category. Although she cleared the recruitment process and her name was placed at Sr. No. 5 of the combined merit list (Annexure A-5), but during the course of scrutiny, she was found over-age. As a consequence thereof, she was declared „not eligible being over-age‟ vide impugned list (Annexure A-6), and her name was not included in the provisional select list of the candidates (Annexure A-7).
3. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the instant O.A., challenging the impugned select lists on the following grounds:-
"(i) That in era of unemployment and cut throat competition, when the applicant has succeeded in the selection process including in the written examination and her experience by sheer hard work and for waiting since long for employment so that she may live upto the expectation of her family and by having secure source of livelihood may held her family, she is not given right of consideration while filling up the post advertised vide Annexure A-1.
(ii) That as stated above, before applying for the post in question, the candidate had telephonically asked about the age limit, the respondents had specifically answered in positive and she was given the assurance the upper age limit to be 37 years and to deny the consideration to the applicant only on the ground of age is not valid and is totally illegal and arbitrary as such the action of the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
(iii) That it is pertinent to mention here that as per the selection procedure the applicant is taken into account, the applicant has more marks than all the other candidates for example the total marks of the written test of the applicant are 58 and 4 marks of her first division and 2 marks of Computer Qualification and 4 marks of her experience, the total merit comes to 68 which is higher than the last selected candidate.
(iii) That the arbitrariness has been held to be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.D. Shetty Versus International Airport Authority of India and other reported as AIR 1979 SC 1628 and Menka Gandhi Versus Union of India as AIR 1978 SC 597 has held that the Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and quality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which are non discriminatory, it must not be guided by the extraneous or irrelevant consideration because that would be denial of equality.
-3- O.A. No. 060/00075/2017
(v) That the various State Governments and the different Public
Service Commissions throughout the Country have increased the upper age limit to 37 years for applying in various government or semi-government Department."
On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the applicant seeks to quash the impugned select lists (Annexure A-6 and A-7), in the manner, indicated hereinabove.
4. On the contrary, the official respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant and filed the written statement, wherein preliminary objection was pleaded as under:-
"That the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the short ground that the applicant has till date not challenged the Rule, which were applicable on the recruitment for which the advertisement (Annexure A-1) was issued. As per the notified recruitment rules, the age limit is 25 to 30 years. The copy of the relevant recruitment Rules, in this regard is attached as Annexure R- 1/1. The department of Personnel, Chandigarh Administration enhanced the age limit for 1st entry into Govt. service (in direct recruitment from 25 to 37 years) on the pattern of Punjab Government vide their circular letter dated 4.11.2016. The said circular has prospective application and cannot be given retrospective effect on the recruitment made as per the advertisement dated 11.08.2016 (Annexure A-1)."
5. However, on merits, it was pleaded that as per advertisement (Annexure A-1), a candidate was required to be between the age of 21 to 30 years as on 01.01.2016, which was issued as per statutory rules (Annexure R-1 /1). The notification (Annexure A-2) dated 04.11.2016 has prospective effect and cannot be made applicable retrospectively, so the applicant is not entitled for relaxation in age for the recruitment in question.
6. Sequelly, Respondent No. 5 has filed a separate written statement on the same line of defence, as pleaded by the official contesting respondents. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the written statements, and in order to avoid the repetition of the facts, suffice it to say that while acknowledging the factual matrix and reiterating the validity of the impugned select lists (Annexures A-6 and A-7), the respondents have stoutly denied all other
-4- O.A. No. 060/00075/2017 allegations and grounds, contained in the O.A., and prayed for its dismissal. That is how we are seized of the matter.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record, with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter, we are of the firm view that there is no merit and the instant O.A. deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned herein below.
8. Ex facie, the main celebrated argument of learned counsel for the applicant that since the U.T. Administration has decided to enhance the age limit for first entry into the Govt. service (in direct recruitment) for all technical and non-technical posts from 18-25 to 18-37 years, as per instructions dated 04.11.2016 (Annexure A-
2), so she is entitled to relaxation of upper age limit for selection to the post of Assistant Clinical Psychologist, is not only devoid of merit, but mis-conceived as well, and deserves to be repelled for the following more than one reason.
9. As is evident from the record, that the advertisement in question (Annexure A-1) was issued on 11.08.2016, wherein a candidate was required to be between the age 21 to 30 years, as on 01.01.2016, and last date of receipt of online applications was 28.09.2016 up to 5 p.m., whereas the instructions (Annexure A-2) were issued on 04.11.2016, by means of which it was decided to enhance the upper age limit from 25 to 37 years, by the UT Administration i.e. much after issuance of the impugned advertisement. Not only that, even as per the instructions (Annexure A-2), the Administrative Secretaries/Head of Departments were requested to carry out the necessary amendment in the service/recruitment rules accordingly, with the approval of the competent authority.
-5- O.A. No. 060/00075/2017 These instructions would naturally apply prospectively and not retrospectively, as urged on behalf of the applicant.
10. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that the posts in question are governed and regulated by the Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh (Group „C‟ Ministerial Posts), Recruitment Rules, 2002 (Annexure R-1/1), wherein the age limit for direct recruitment is prescribed between 21 to 30 years. In pursuance of the statutory rules, the age limit was prescribed as 21 to 30 years in the advertisement (Annexure A-1). Unless and until the statutory rules are amended, so as to enhance the age- limit, the subsequent instructions dated 04.11.2016, neither would apply retrospectively nor over-ride the statutory recruitment rules (Annexure R-1/1).
11. Therefore, it is held that since the applicant was over-age on the relevant date, contained in the advertisement, and the instructions (Annexure A-2) would not operate retrospectively, so she is not entitled to age relaxation, as claimed by her. Hence, the competent authority has rightly declared her over-age, in pursuance of the advertisement and statutory rules, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
12. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. In the light of the aforesaid prismatic reasons, as there is no merit, so the instant O.A. is hereby dismissed as such. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
(P. GOPINATH) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 15.11.2017
„mw‟