Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Manoj Kumar Verma vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary ... on 1 December, 2006
ORDER
B. Panigrahi, Chairman
1. In this case, short and important question that has been raised for consideration is whether the Govt. of NCT of Delhi still retains the character of Union Territory or has acquired the status of separate State.
2. The facts of the present case are that the applicant applied through proper channel for the Combined Graduate Level Preliminary Examination-2003 pursuant to the advertisement issued, on 25.1.2003. The maximum age limit prescribed thereunder for the posts of Assistant Grade and Sub Inspectors was 20-27 years and in respect of Inspectors of Central Excise and Divisional Accounts, it was 18-27 years. The age limit of the departmental candidates could be relaxed upto 5 years, i.e., till they attain the age of 32 years (37 years for SC/ST and 35 years for OBC) in respect of all Central Government servants with not less than three years continuous and regular service as on 1.8.2003 in various Departments/Offices of the Government of India including those under the Union Territory Administrations or in the office of the Election Commission and the Central Vigilance Commission or in the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariat. The departmental candidates applying for the above posts were required to submit a certificate from their employer in case they qualify to appear in the main examination. The applicant appeared in the said examination as a departmental candidate and he was found selected on 12.7.2003.
3. Again an advertisement for Combined Graduate Level Main Examination-2003 was published in which the applicant gave his preferences as (i) Inspector (Central Excise) (ii) Assistant Grade (iii) Divisional Accountant, etc. The crucial date for determining the age limit was on 1.8.2003 for qualifying service of the applicant for claiming age relaxation. The Combined Graduate Level Main Examination was held on 26.9.2003. Result of both the posts, i.e., Inspector Grade & Assistant Grade, was declared on 23.7.2004. The combined interview of the applicant for both the posts was conducted on 30.9.2004. In the final results, the applicant seems to have qualified against his first choice, i.e., Inspector (Central Exercise). He received a letter dated 10.1.2005 by which he was informed that his prayer for age relaxation by treating him to be a Central Government employee on account of his employment in Govt. of NCT, Delhi was rejected. Since the employment in Government of NCT, Delhi i.e., GTB Hospital is not treated as Central Government employment, his prayer for age relaxation could not be acceded to. Being found overage, his candidature was cancelled. He has submitted a representation and the same was rejected by the respondent-authorities. Therefore, being aggrieved by and affected with the aforesaid order, he has filed this case.
4. The respondents have filed their counter reply in which most of the factual aspects have not been seriously controverted. It is said that the applicant had given an undertaking in which it has been stated that in the event the employees of NCT, Delhi are not taken as the employees of the Central Government, he might not be taken as Central Government employee and the respondents will be under no obligation to consider his application. Main document upon which the respondents rely their case is letter dated 30.12.2004 in which it is stated that Department of Personnel and Training has opined that the persons serving in the Delhi Police are not eligible for age relaxation as departmental employee for appointment in Central Government posts and similarly, employees of Govt. of Delhi are also not eligible.
5. Ms. Simran, proxy counsel for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that in the advertisement, it was clearly laid down that all Central Government servants with not less than three years of continuous and regular service as on 1st August, 2003 in various Departments/Offices of the Govt. of India including those under the Union Territories Administration or in the office of the Election Commission and the Central Vigilance Commission or in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariats, are eligible for claiming age relaxation. Since the applicant is working in GTB Hospital and such institution being a part and parcel of Govt. of NCT, Delhi which still retains the character of Union Territory, therefore, his application ought not to have been cancelled. If the respondents were having such objections, they should not have allowed the applicant to sit in the examination. Once they permitted him to take part in the examination, after he being selected for the post, it was not open to the respondents to take `U' turn and submit that Govt. of NCT, Delhi cannot be regarded as Union Territory.
6. Mr. S.M. Arif, learned Counsel for the respondents mainly relied upon the letter issued by the DoP&T dated 30.12.2004 wherein it was stated that the employees of Govt. of Delhi could not be regarded as Central Government employees.
7. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, we were addressed to decide as to whether the employees of Govt. NCT, Delhi could still be regarded to have been working under Union Territory.
8. Once the Tribunal comes to hold that the employees of Govt. of NCT, Delhi still could be regarded as employees of the Union Territory, the respondents would be obliged to give age relaxation. In this regard, we have to refer Articles 239AA and 239AB. In Article 239AA, it is stated that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the President of India and Council of Ministers will be appointed by the President of India on the advice of the Chief Minister, who shall hold office during the pleasure of the President but whatever law is passed by the Legislative Assembly it shall be placed before the President of India for his assent. Under Sub-Clause(8) to Article 239AA, it is stipulated that the provisions of Article 239B shall apply in relation to the National Capital Territory, Delhi as that of Union Territory of Pondicherry. The Lieutenant Governor is regarded as the Administrator. Upon careful perusal of the provision of the Constitution, there appears to have no room for doubt that the Govt. of NCT, Delhi still retains the character of Union Territory. Earlier, such position also appeared for discussion before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of NCT, Delhi v. All India Central Civil Accounts JAO's Association and Ors. . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
8. Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Union of India raised a preliminary objection on the basis of Section 52(b) of the Act which provides that all suits and proceedings in connection with the administration of the capital shall be instituted by or against the Government of India. The objection raised by the learned Counsel ignores the fact that the matter arises out of an order passed by the Tribunal before which the Government of NCT, Delhi was impleaded as Respondent 3 while the Union of India was impleaded as Respondent 1. When the Union of India was also impleaded as a party and the appellant as another separate party and the order made by the Tribunal affects one of the parties, it is difficult to conceive as to why that party cannot file an appeal invoking the provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution which is a proceeding against the orders made by the courts and the Tribunals. The position in law is clear that though the Union Territories are centrally administered under the provisions of Article 239 of the Constitution, they do not become merged with the Central Government and they form part of no State and yet are the territories of the Union, as has been held by this Court in Satya Dev Bushahri v. Padam Dev and NDMC v. State of Punjab . Thus, it must be held that the Union Territory does not entirely lose its existence as an entity though large control is exercised by the Union of India. In this view of the matter, we do not think the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents by Shri Malhotra is justified and the same is rejected.
9. Though the Union Territories are Centrally administered under the provisions of Article 239 of the Constitution they do not become merged with Central Government and they form part of no State and yet are the Union Territory of the Union. Thus, it must be held that the Union Territory does not entirely lose its existence as an entity though large control is exercised by the Union of India.
10. In the advertisement, it is clearly stipulated that the employees of the Union Territories are entitled for consideration of age relaxation.
11. An identical question appeared for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. PUSHPA AND OTHERS V. SIVACHANMUGAVELU AND OTHERS as to whether Pondicherry could be regarded as separate State or still it retained the character of Union Territory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held in lucid terms that the Pondicherry still retained the character of Union Territory. Therefore, the SC/ST candidates came from outside UT of Pondicherry would also be eligible for the post reserved for SC/ST candidates in UT of Pondicherry Administration.
12. In this case, there is no dispute that the applicant passed not only the written test but also the viva-voce. We could understand had the respondent-authorities raised such objection at the initial stage so that the applicant could have known his fate from the beginning and such controversy would not have arisen. But once he has been permitted to appear in the examination and come out successful, it appears to be inappropriate to preclude the applicant from being considered to be appointed.
13. In the result, we, therefore, direct the respondents to consider the applicant's prayer for relaxation by treating him to be an employee of the Union Territory, if he is otherwise eligible. If he found selected, his case for appointment as Inspector (Central Excise) may be considered. This exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the communication of the present order. The application is accordingly allowed.