Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Jiji Mathew vs Education on 28 March, 2024
10) , 1 O.A. 351/00057/2024. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE;TRIBUNAL " KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA -* No. 0.A. 351/00057/2024 - Heard on : 26/02.2024 ; Date of order: SDR: (03° 202-4: Present _Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member ae Hon'ble Mr, Suchitto Kr. Das; Administrative Member l. Ms. Jiji Mathew, "Daughter of V.T. Mathew, - Aged about 36 years, , Residing at Garacharma; ' 'South Andaman, -- Port Blair, - Andaman & Nicobar Islands, . Pin Code : 744 101.- Phone : 9531950514. a Emadil:[email protected] - 2. Shri Subrata Rajbanshi, Son of Late Suresh Ch. Rajbanshi, . Residing at Village & P. 0. 'Silanagar, Diglipur, * er North and Middle Andaman, ' _ ' Pin Code: 744101. s Phone: 9434293846 . Email: [email protected] 3, Ms. Sheeba Mistry, Daughter.of Vasudevan, Residing at C/o: Sheeba Sa' Vision, Prem Nagar, _ Near Kali Mandir, South Andaman, Pin -- 744103, -- Phonie : 9531933828 © Email: shesbebinadno7@emailcom 4, "Ms. Jothi Kumari; ' -Datighter of B. Chandra Rao; Residing at Shore Point, Bambooflat, ' Pin Code :.744107; © 2 - -- 0.A.351/00057/2024 - Andaman.and Nicobar Island, Pin Code ~-- 744101: 5. Ms. Padmavati, Daughter of R. Yellaiah, Residing dt Dolly Gury, - Port Blair, Pin Code : 744103, Andaman and Nicobar Island, Phone No. 9531838351 Email: [email protected] 6. Ms, Deepa, . ' Daughter of P. Kalidas, Residing at New Pahargaon, Pin Code: 744101 Phone: 9933286021 ' , Email: [email protected] 7. Ms. Shilpa Biswas, . Daughter of Makhan Lall Biswas, Residing at Navin Nagar, Diglipur, - Pin Code -- 744101. Phone -- 9476081595 - | Email: [email protected] - 8. Ms. G. Kavitha, "Daughter of Govinda Rajan, Residing at Haddo, Ward No. 1, ~ Pin Code -- 744101 Phone : 9476061648. Email: [email protected] 9. -Shri Shyam Sundar Singh, - Son of Lt. Gulab Singh, Residing at Garacharma near Sarvottam Bar, Pin Code: 744 101 ° Phone: 9474275457 Email: [email protected] . 10.. Shri Ashim Mistry, © . 3 O.A. 351/00057/2024 Son of Sadananda Mistry, Residing at Sita Nagar, . Diglipur, North Andaman, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Pin -- 744 202. 11. Leena Haldar, D/o Sudhangshu Haldar, _ Village & amp. Post ~ Nabagram, Diglipur, . North & amp : Middle Andaman, Pin -- 744102. Email.-- [email protected] 12. K. Srinivas, S/o Shri K, Madhava Rao, C-71, L.S. 'Street Haddo Lillypur, Port Blair, South Andaman, A&Amp; N. Island -- 744 102. Email -- [email protected] _13. Mohammed Aslam, S/o Abdulla, R/o Kanya Puram South Andaman, A& N. Islands -- 744 206 Email -- [email protected] Subject : Recruitment wt eeeeneaes . Applicants - VERSUS - 1. The Lieutenant Governor, Andaman. and Nicobar Islands, Rajniwas; Port Blair, Port Blair, - 'Pin =744 101. 2. Chief Secretary. Andaman & Nicobar Administration, '@) . 4 - 0.4, 351/00057/2024 Port Blair, Pin-744 101. 3. Secretary, Director of Education, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Pin - 744 101. 4. The Director, Directorate of Education; Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair, Andaman' & Nicobar Islands,. Pin = 744101. 5. The- 'Deputy Director (Perl.), Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Pin - 744 101. .. Respondents For the Applicants : Mr. B. Bhusan, Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. D.-Chowdhury, Counsel ORDER
Mr, Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member .The applicants (13. in number) have jointly filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"8.a) Direction upon the respondent no; 1 to enhance the maximum age limit upto. 8 'pears for general candidates and to culminate the process of recruitment thereafter for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher and thereafter conclude the process of recruitment.
b) Records of the instant case be produced.
c) Such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and
-_proper."
2. In the present O.A.,, the main grievance of the applicants herein is that after -
- long time, the respondents have not notified vacancy notice for filling up the post of
-5 "QA, 351/00057/2024 .
of Graduate Trained Teacher (hereinafter referred to as GTT) and. only in the month of July, 2023 ie. on 11:07.2023 (Annexure A/A), the respondent No. 5 has
- issued vacancy notice inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up 160 vacancies for thé post of GTT in the different subjects and mediums in Gr. 'B' (Non-Gazetted), 'Non-Ministerial post - under the Department of Education, A&N Administration. "Thereafter another vacancy notice «dated 07.12. 2023 (Annexure A/5) was s published for filling up 380 vacancies for the post of GTT.
. In both the vacancy notices, the maximum age limit has been stipulated as 30 years for the General Candidates i.e.-who are not working in any capacity under the A&N Administration. Since the "dpplicants herein are working-in private Ny schools/institutions asteachers and possess requisite educational qualification but due to stipulation of maximum age limit of 30 years, they have been deprived 'of participating in the recruitment process being overaged.
"2:1. It is also-the grievance' of the applicaiits that in the year 2018 at the - time of framing of recruitment rules, the 'applicants and similarly | situated candidates/téachers' had, submitted their objection to the draft. Recruitment Rules and had requested the competent authority to enhance the 'maximum age limit for General candidates, who are not in employment /engagement under the A&N Administration, in any capacity and further requested for enhancement of 8 years upper age limit beyond 'the prescribed 30 years. | However, the respondents without adhering to such request, had notified the Recruitment Rules for filling up the post of GTT in the year 2018-2019 by prescribing . ° the maximum.age limit of 30 years. It is'stated that the said condition ye '@) 7 Do 6 O.A, 351/00057/2024 of maximum age limit of 30 years has also been maintained in the subsequent amended Recruitment Rules for the post of GIT (Gr. 'B' Non-Gazetted) which was published vide notification dated _ 28.06.2023 (in short here & after referred as "RR-2023"), (Annexure A/3). In terms of the said rules, the respondents have maintained the -- upper age limit of 30. years'in the recent vacancy notice. Since same has been notified after long time and the applicant became overaged by that time, therefore, the applicants have requested the respondents to enhance the upper age limit and allow the applicants to submit their applications'in response to the vacancy notice for the post of GTT.
However, the request of the applicants for. enhancing the upper age limit: prescribed for applying for the post of GIT 'has' not been responded to, as prayed for has not been granted to them by the respondents. Hence, this O.A.
3. At 'this stage, it is apt to mention that, initially the present OA. was dismissed at admission stage vide order dated 22.01.2024 by this Tribunal on the grounds of niaintainability.
3.1. Being aggrieved, the applicants had approached. the Hon'ble- High Court by way of filing WPCT No. 12/2024 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. By accepting the submission of petitioners i.e. applicarits herein, that the applicants No. 1, 2 and-5 in the O.A. had. filed their individual representation for redressal of their. grievance ' and same has not been taken into consideration, Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 07.02.2024 quashed and set. aside the order oF 7 O.A. 351/00057/2024 passed by this. Tribunal and tiad directed to decide the matter on merits with regard to the prayers in the OA.
3.2. By filing M:A. No. 179/2024, the applicants had placed on record the-copy of order dated: 07.02:2024 passed by the Hon'ble High | | Court as reférred hereinabove. It is also apt to mention that in total there are. 13 applicants, out of which copy of representations dated 28.12, 2023 of applicant No. 1 address' to Labour & Employment Department, A &N Administration, copy of representation No, 2 dated 12/13.12.2023-addressed to the respondent no.2, and the copy of : representation dated 26.7:2023 of applicant No. '5 which was addressed to: Respondent 'No. 1 herein, which was placed: on record subsequently.
Accordingly, the O.A. has been taken up for hearing afresh.
33; The interim relief as sought by the applicants.in the O.A. to stay the recruitment process and issue: direction upon respondent no:1 to apply :the provision of 'rule 5 of the Recruitment Rule notification dated 28:06: 2023 for relaxing the age limit was declined by this . Tribunal ivide interim order dated 12.02.2024 and the respondents were. directed to. file their reply. Thereafter, as per the request of Ld:
Counsel for the applicants, liberty was. granted to file additional affidavit vide order dated 19.02.2024. Thereafter, with the-consent of .
'Ld. Counsel for both sides, the case was adjourned for further hearing and on completion of pleadings, the matter was taken up for final a hearing.
4, 8° 0.A. 351/00057/2024 | At hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicants mainly submitted. as under:
4.1. .During the year 2013, 2015 the respondents i.e. AN Administration had prescribed age limit for Male candidates as 37 -
years and for Female. candidates as 40 years for filling up approximately 2023 vacancies of GTT. | 4.2. It is stated that in the year 2016, the maximum age limit was :
initially prescribed as 30 years for Male & Female -candidates,
- However, the: respondent No. 1 had exercised his power of age --
relaxation as envisaged in the Recruitment Rules and had granted the | age relaxation upto.8 years to the candidates, who were appearing . against the'aforesaid vacancy notices, -
4.3, Thereafter, the competent authority had issued draft recruitment ~ rules on 12.10.2018 for the post of GIT in Directorate of Education wherein the maximum age limit was prescribed to be 30 years.
Against the proposed age Timit of 30 years, various representations were filed:by the: eligible candidates and requested the respondent - authorities to enhance. the prescribed 'maxinium age. limit so that a reasoriable number of candidates can get-an opportunity to participate _in the reciuitment procéss for the post of GIT. However, no action.
' was-takeri on such representations.
4.4, It is'stated that despite various representations, the respondents did not consider the prayer of innumerable candidates and had | published a notification of Recruitment Rules in the month of November, 2019 wherein the age limit for direct recruits for the GTT Cf 9° QA, 354/00057/2024."
prescribed 'as 30 years. and 'subsequently with minor changes with regard to insertion of language, had published final Recruitment Rules on 28.6.2023 wherein the age limit for direct recruits for the GTT remains as. 30-years: (Annexure A/3 refer) 4.5. It is stated. that pursuant to the -provisions stipulated in the Recruitihent Rules, 2023: the-respondent 'No. 4 & 5 'issued vavancy notice. dated 11.7.2023 for filling up 160 posts of GTT. (Annexure | A/4 refer). | Tt is stated that-being agetieved with non-prant.of age relaxation to the General Candidates' who are working in private school 'have filed ©.A. No. 1089 of 2023 (Pratap Chakraborty & ors: -- v- Union of - India & ors.) and the said O.A. is pending before this Tribunal.
46. Thereafter, the respondents No. 4 & 5 issued second Vacancy 'Notice-dated 7.12.2023 (Annexure A/5) for filling up 380 posts of - GTT with the identical condition that the maximum age limit will be 30 yearsifor the General Candidates.
4.7, By-referring to. para 4.10 of the instant O.A. it is contended by. - - the «applicants. that after' publication -of the Vacancy Notice dated -- 7.12.2023 and upon non-receipt of any reply/response to the earlier:
"representation submitted by some: of the candidates. in respect to request for-grant of age relaxation beyond the terms of 30: years age limit, they approackied a political party, who had made a
-répreséntation dated. 13.1 2.2023 addressed to respondents No. 1 and 2 .
pe 10, 0.A. 351/00057/2024 and requested for grant'of age relaxation for the benefit of candidates. at large. (Annexure 6 refer) 4.8. Further, it is-stated that one Ms. Zarina Begum, had submitted her representation dated 26.5.2023 (Annexure A/2) and had requested --
'the respondent No. 5 to.consider her representation which was filed in' the year 2018 and had also fequested to" grant 'age relaxation upto 33 and 38-years for Male and Female respectively.
4.9, itis stated thaton. 15.5 .2023, identically placed. persons, who were intending to dpply. for the post of Physical Education Teacher (PET) in response -to vacancy notice issued on 4.5,2023, have also filed their representations and requested the respondents to grant age relaxation, over dnd above the age limit presctibed in the Recruitment Rules. In the said represeritation, it was also requestéd to grant one time '03 - three years' age relaxation on. and above upper age limit " stipulated in-the vacancy notice of 30 years of age, so that they can get an opportunity to apply for the post of PET (Annexure A/2 collectively refer).
4.10. Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhushan for the applicants would argue that DoP&T OM. dated -31.12.2010, (Annexure A/7) had issued instructions to fix the upper age limit of 30 years for the post: carrying
- Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/: & Rs. 4600/- and taking into account the said -
O.M.L, the respondents herein have also. fixed the Upper Age Limit upto 30 years in the Recruitment Rules, 2023, aswell in. the: vacancy notice dated.07:12.2023 for filling up the post of GTT since the. pay yer 11: 0.A. 351/00057/2024 -
scale for the:post of GTT is fixed at' Level 7 of Pay Matrix which is 7 = corresponding to the Grade'Pay of Rs. 4200/- as well Rs 4600/- as per 'the 6".CPC and said post has been classified as Gr. 'B' Non-Gazetted post. | 4:11. Further, it is stated that in relaxation to the general rules; the Respondent No. 1 ie. competent authority had relaxed the said upper age limit' of 30 years for Government Servants upto 5 years in accordance with the instrtietion' issued by the Central. Government from time to time provided:that the Government servant: should have | rendered ininimuni 3 years continuous getvice in the cadre, ; Further, age relaxation is also allowed by the competent _ a) authority © for' SC/ST/OBC/PWD(UR)/PWD(OBCYPWD(ST)/Ex- : Serviceman and also to-the candidates who are covered. under A&N Administration: circular No. 45/1998-PW dated 19.09.2011 ie. in-- .
respect to DRM & Contract employees. including' SSCT'DRMs of A&N Administration as per DoP&T Gol OM. In this regard, Ld. -
; ; . ! ; :
.. Counsel for the applicants referred to condition No. 3 stipulated in vacancy. notice dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure A/S refer). 4.12. Ld. 'Counsel vehemently argued that the prescribed age limit of. _ 30 years in the Recruitment Rules is justiciable only for other mainland States and Union Territories. because the mechanism of examination in those States are upon competition, but in the Island of © Andaman:and Nicdbar, the procedure of gelf-marking is applicable for.
recruitment instead of .open market competition because of # "42 0.A. 351/00057/2024 | geographical limitation-of the A & N Island. Therefore, the request of applicants, who are otherwise eligible, ought to have been accepted by _ the competent authority by pranting age relaxation as a general tule. 4.13. Further, it is stated: that in the case of Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs),. contract employees including those appointed as Sarva Siksha Contract 'Teachers (SSCT) working for a long period under . _ A&N Administration, the. .competent authority by referring to the O:M.-dated 15.10.1987. (Annexure A/9) and by invoking discretion to relax the upper age limit, vide Circular dated 19.9,201 1, relaxed. the maximum age limit of 30 years (Annexure A/8 refer) Therefore, it is submitted that similar: benefits 'ought to have been extended to: the | . applicants herein. | 4.14. It is submitted that the respondents have granted benefit of age relaxation to the Part Time 'employees who are working under-A&N Administration' in compliance of the order passed. by this Tribunal in _ O.A. No. 1220/2023, O.A. '1222/2023 and O.A. 1238/2023 and had accordingly issued letter dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure A/10 refer).
- Furthet, it is stated that identical: benefit of age relaxation has also been extended by the respondents to the eligible candidates for Contractual post of Special Educator (SS) working with and under'A & N Administration (Annexure A/11 refer), 'Therefore, Ld. Counsel would submit that the General Candidates who are not in erigagement-or employnieiit under the A&N Administration but are y
13. ~---O.A.351/00057/2024 otherwise eligible to.apply for the post"of GTT have been deprived. .
due to insertion of Upper Age Limit of 30 years.
4.15. It is stated that, the respondents vide letter dated. 3.1.2024 (Annexure -A/13) have furnished information under RTI Act to one - | Shri Abdul Arish wherein it has. been' stated that total 367 posts Se , GTT -weré:deenied abolished. By referring to the same, Ld. Counsel ~ would argue that after 2016.no mass recruitment has taken place and.a. * large number of candidates 'could not get any opportunity to apply for the post of GIT. Therefore, the competent authority ought to. grant -
benefit of age rélaxation to those who have crossed the upper-age limit but are otherwise eligible to. apply for the post of GTT. | 4.16. 'Further, it is. stated that as per 'the proposal submitted by -the Director of- Education for- revival of total'. 909 deemed abolished post including Gr. "B' (Gazetted & Non-Gazetted) posts of GTT, the Ministry. of Education. vide letter dated 19.09.2023 accorded its approval 'for revival ; of 328 posts under Department of Education which are lying vacant --
~ for less than five years, (Aniexure A/14);
_ Accordingly, the respondents had. issued vacancy notice dated -
11.07.2023. for filling up 160 GTT posts and thereafter second --
. vacancy notice was issued on 7.12,2023 for 380 GTT posts.
4.17. Therefore, Ld. Counsel submits that since long the respondents have not initiated the recruitment process for filling up the post of GTT,. the competent authority Le. respondent No. 1 herein ought to have. granted age relaxation to the candidates, who are otherwise yy 7 oo ; 1: oA. 351/00087/2024 | eligible but have not been considered to be eligible to-apply for the ;
_ postin question being over aged. | 4.18. Mr. B. Bhusan, Ld. Counsel further submits that the- applicants were eligible to apply for the post of GIT in previous recruitment years. but: the respondent did not initiate recruitment process and, as such, after lapse of some:years the recruitment process for filling up posts of GTT has been jevived Le. in the month of July & December; 2023. Therefore, the competent authority, Le, respondent No, l ought 7 to have considered the claim of the applicants for grant of one-time age relaxation as they.are otherwise eligible to apply for the-post of --
"GIT.
In order to substantiate the said. submission, the Ld. Counsél placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case. of High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma reported in (2022) ' 4SCC 643. | 4,19, Since, the - respondents have not considered "the grievance/claim/request -of the applicants for grant of one-time age relaxation, the applicants have filed. the present O.A. for issuance of a .
direction upon the respondent No. 1 to enhance the maximum age: .
limit upto & years and conclude the process of recruitment after considering: the claim of the-applicant.
5. Per contra, the respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant. Dr. D. "Chowdhury; Ld. Standing Counsel for the respondents, by referring to the: said reply; mainly submitted as under:-
{ ie 15° - 0.A;351/00057/2024 5.1. It is stated that vide O.M.. dated 31.12.2010, DoP&T had issued various guidelines and instructions for framing / amendment /: |
- relaxation of Recruitment 'Rules wherein the instructions: for fixing upper.age limit for different posts upon the nature of duties, education qualification and experience requirements, the following criteria has been prescribed. which reads as uinder:-
s.y Posts - Age Limits . No..
'i. Posts having Grade Pay more than | Preferably. 7600 oO below 50 ' | years _
(ii). Posts having-Grade Pay Rs. 7600 | 50 years | @ii).| Posts having Grade Pay Rs. 6600 | 40.years _ | (iv)'|. Posts. having:Grade Pay Rs. 5400 __| 35 years
(v):|-Posts having Grade _ Pay Rs, | 30 years 4200, 4600,:4800__ | _
(vi) | Posts having Grade Pay Rs. 1800, Between 18] , 1900, 2000, 2400 & 2800 and.25 years"
5.2. It is submitted".that in' terms of 6" CPC, the Grade Pay prescribed. for the post of GIT is Rs, 4600/-, accordingly the ASN | Administration by taking into account the aforesaid' DoP&T instructions have prescribed the maximum upper age limit as 30 years | for the posts of Gr. 'B' (Non-Gazetted) (Non-Ministerial) post of ° Graduate Trained Teacher (GTT) (Language/ Mathematics/ Physics/ Science/ Life-Science/ Social Science/ Home Science) born in. the Directorate of Education, Andaman & Nicobar Administration and in.
this regard, draft Recruitment Rules was published in 'the year 2018 * and obj ections were invited from candidates at large.
16: 0.A, 351/00057/2024 Thereafter, -in'exercise of power vested under Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with GOI, Ministry of Home Affairs 'notification dated' 21.02.1985 and in supersession of all previous --
notifications, the competent authority had made the rules regulating the method of recruitinent rules to Gr. 'B' which includes the posts of PGT .& GTT and had notified the said Recruitment Rules on 05.11.2019 (Annexure R/3 refer). The said rules are called as the "
| Lhe Andaman '& Nicobar 'Administration, Department of Education, .
(Group-"B", Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial posts) Recruitment Rules, 2019" (referred herein as RR, 2019). | | 5.3. It is stated that-in Schedule I attached to the said RR, 2019, the - post of GTY has been classified as General Central Service "Gr. B", Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial and the scale of pay for the post of GTT has been prescribed in Pay Matrix as Level -- 7 (Rs. 44,.900-".
1,42,400).
5.4, It is stated that the Govt: of the National Capital Territory of Delhi by. adhering to the instructions contained. in DoP&T O.M. had fixed the | ~ upper age limit of 30 years in respect to the post-of PGT which carry Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- and..accordingly same has been prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) notified on. 29.09.2022. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the | post which has been-classified as Gr. 'B' in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- - | Rs. 4800/-, uniformly the upper age limit of 30 years has been fixed for the " said post of GIT/PGT and accordingly the said terms has been stipulated in the Recruitment Rules.as-well the Vacaricy Notice.
17 0.A. 351/00057/2024 5.5. It is submitted that.the A&®N Administration after inviting obj ections in respect to the amendment in the Recruitment Rules, 2019 subséquently notified the amended Recruitment Rules for filling up the post of GTT in ' exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and Gol notification in supersession of all previous notification which is known as "
The Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Department of Education, (Group-"B", Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial posts) Recruitinent Rules, 2023" (referred herein as RR; 2023), The said RR, 2023 are in vogue :
and govern the field of regulating the method of recruitment for the post of GIT as on date in A&N Administration (Annexure R/3 collectively refer):
5.6. Ld. Counsel would argue that in the Schedule I attached to the . said RR, 2023, it is stipulated that: |
(i) the post of GTT has been classified as General Central -
| Sérvice "Gy, 'B", Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial and the. scale of pay for the post of :GTT has been prescribed in Pay Matrix as =. Level --7 (Rs. 44:900-1,42,400).
(ii) the Age Limit for direct recruits should not exceed 30 years (Relaxable. for 'Government servants upto 5 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central | Government). | . 5:7... Further, it is stated. that Rule 5 of the said RR, 2023 authorized the Respondent No. | to'relax any of the provision of the rules if in the opinion of Respondent No. 1 that it is necessary or expedient so to Op.
pet 18 0.4. 351/00057/2024 do and 'by order, for teasons to be recorded in writing relax the provisions -of rules. Rulé 6 of the said RR, 2023 stipulates that' nothing in these Rules shall affect reservations, relaxation regarding age limit and other. concessions. required to be provided for the Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes: and other special categories of persons in accordance with the orders- issued by the. Central Government front time to. time in this regard.
5.8. It is submitted that in light of provisions contained in the RR, ~ 2023,. and conditions stipulated in a Schedule I of RR,. 2023, the -
tespondents have published the. vacancy notice dated 11:07.2023 for | filling-up total 160-vacancies for the post''of GTT and had also issued | vacancy notice dated 07.12.2023 for filling up 380 posts of GTT. In the said vacancy -notice, the Clause 3 of the said vacancy notice stipulates that the maximum 30 years of age by granting age' relaxation to. the. Government Servants as well SC/ST/OBC and other. -
Special categories of persons in accordance with terms.of the said RR, 2023.
5.9. Ld. Counsel would ' argue that - before finalization of
- Recruitment Rules, 2023. for filling up the posts. of GIT, the draft Recruitment Rules was published and the respondents 'had invited claims and: objections. However, the applicants herein had remained silent at that time and, as such, the final Recruitment Rules was.
published'.on 28.06.2023 wherein, the maximum age limit has been prescribed as 30 years. Accordingly, the vacancy notice issued on qi:
19° - 0.A,351/00057/2024 11.07.2023 for filling up 160 posts of GIT and subsequently issued ' another vacancy notice dated 07.12.2023. Therefore, it is not open for the applicants to raise any objection or 'grievance in respect to the Recruitment Rules notified on 28.06.2023 as well the vacancy notices dated 11.07.2023 and 7.12.2023.
- 5.10. Further, it is submitted that the respondents had published the Recruitment Rules in the year 2019 in respect to regulating the | method 'of recruitment to the post of PGTIGTT wherein the upper age | limit has been prescribed as 30 years that too after inviting objections thereon: Therefore, thie grievance of the applicants that some of the |. similarly placed persons / candidates had- submitted their objection in respect to the. draft recruitment rules published in the year 2018 has lost its force after publication of the Recruitment Rules in the year 2019. Not only that as stated hereinabove, before finalization of . existing Recruitment Rules, 2023, the objections were invited but tlie applicants remained silent till the finalization of RR of 2023 was notified-on 28.06:2023 accordingly the vacancy notice has been issued in the month of July, 2023 and the second vacancy notice was issued in the month of December, 2023 for filling up the post of GTT which is in consonance with the provisions of the statutory rules.
5.11. It is submitted that various posts were abolished including GTT | inthe department of Education and, as such, after revival of the said
- posts and as per administrative exigency, the respondents 'have i 20 0.A. 351/00057/2024 notified the vacancies vide vacancy notice dated 11.07.2023 and 7.12.2023 on finalization 'of recruitment rules dated 28.6.2023. For the . said reasons as referred hereinabove, the respondents have published the vacancy notice and have invited the applications from the eligible candidates by providing permissible age relaxation in terms of RR as well circular dated 19.11.2011 issued in terms of DoP&T O.M. dated
15. 10.1997. Since the applicants herein do not fall under any category to' avail the benefit of age relaxation as. stipulated in the vacancy notice, which is as such in consonance with the Recruitment Rules, ~ they are not entitled for any relief as sought for in this O.A. 2 6. The applicants: have filed rej oinder and reiterated the contention stated in the O.A. Additionally, 'the applicants by referring to newspaper publication (RJ-1) contended that in respect to the Draft Recruitment Rules, 2018 for Gr. 'B' (Non- Gazetted) posts, the respondents. had invited claims and objections, if any, and the intending candidates, as such, had filed their objection to the said draft rules. In support of it, the applicants have referred to copy of objection filed by one Pratap Chakraborty on 08.11.2018 in respect to grant of age relaxation for the post of GIT & PGT, copy of claim .and objection 'dated 05.11.2018 submitted by one. Prasanta Bepari, who was working as private tutor in respect to draft Recruitment Rules for the year 2018. Further, copy of representation dated 05.11.2018 submitted by one Sanjit Das in respect to draft recruitment rules, 201 8 as well the representation dated 12.11.2018 'of one Deepika Haldar, copy of representation dated 01.11.2018 of one Smt. Zarina Begum seeking age relaxation in respect to draft Recruitment Rules of the year 2018. Another representation dated 8. 11.2018 ye O , 21 0.A. 351/00057/2024 _ of one Subrata Rajbanshi was submitted whereby it was requested to create GIT Physical Science (Bengali Medium) so that he can:get a chance to apply -for the post, | 6.1. By referring to the aforesaid representations annexed to the rejoinder, ' the applicants claim that the objections raised by the incumbents in respect to draft Recruitment Rules. of the year 2018 remained unanswered and had erroneously: published the Rectuitinent Rules by fixing the upper age limit of 30 years and deprived the applicants and other similarly situated persons of . their legitimate claim.
6.2. It is submitted that the prayer sought in the present O.A. for issuance .
of direction upen the respondents to enhance thé maximum age limit upto 8 years is.required to be considered in light of spirit of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and till the claim of the applicants is: decided by the competent authority, the respondents are required to be réstrained from finalising the selection process for'the post.of GIT. 6.3. Further, Ld. Counsel for the applicant would submit that. since the
-_ respondents have not published recruitment notice for long the claim of the applicants for one-time age relaxation, should have been considered by the -- respondents and 'in this regard he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devina Sharma (supra). Further, by referring to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalam Organics Limited v. Union of India reported in. (2017) 7 SCC 221, Ld. -Counsel- would argue that there exist cogent reasons to exercise discretionary powers vested with the competent authority yl
22. - OA. 351/00057/2024 "under the Rules to grant age relaxation. as claimed by the applicant, which ' the said authority has not exercised. He would, therefore, contend that the
- Court.can intervene and direct the respondents to enhance the age criteria as.
prayed for.by the.applicants.
7. "Heard Ld: Counsel for both sides and perused materials on record.
8. At the outset, it is apt to mention that undisputedly before firialization of - Recruitment Rules, 2023 for. filling, of: the post of GTT, the respondents, A&N Administration have. invited objections: from the stake holders and thereafter the said- RR:2023 was published vide notification on 28.06.2023.
- §d:° It is also not in dispute that the 'said RR, 2023 governs the field in 'regulating the method:of recruitment of Graduate Trained Teacher (GTT). In -
'. the Schedule-I-attached to the said RR, 2023 stipulates the terms that age limit. for recruitment. of GTT is "not exceeding-30 years". It is also not in dispute that the | said condition of upper age limit of 30 years has been prescribed in terms of DoP&T instructions in O M. dated 31.12.2010 since the post of GIT has been classified as Gr. 'B' post (Non: -Gazetted) and as' per the 7" CPC, the Grade Pay » | "has been preserved for the post of Gr. 'B' for Rs. 4200/-, Rs: 4600/- and Rs. | 4800/-. The said-fact'has been admitted by the applicants herein.
8.2. " Buither, inaccordance 'with the instructions/orders issued by the Central _ Government the-age relaxation on and above the upper age limit has been oraitéd to the Govt. servant. upto five years for the post of GTT. Further, it,is also not in dispute that in- terms of Andaman & Nicobar Secretariat circular datéd ~ 19.09.2011, the competent authority in exercise of powers vested in Recruitment of 2B: 0.4. 351/00057/2024 'Rules under RR-2023 granted age relaxation to'the DRMs and Contract employees including SSCT working under A&N Administration. 8.3. . It is noticed that clause,3. of the vacancy notice, prescribe the' age limit-of 30-years as well the condition for age relaxation provided to differerit categories as stipulated in 3(i), 3(fi) of the vacancy notice dated 11.07.2023 as well vacancy "notice dated 7.12.2023 (Annexure A/4 & A/S refer).
9, -It-emerges from record. that 'the applicants herein admittedly have not rendered minimum three years" continuous service in the department nor have they - claimed age 'rélaxation provided under clause 3 of the vacancy. notice. The . applicants herein are-private persons in other words General candidates who do not ) fall under any-categoty to claim age relaxation prescribed in the vacancy notice. Therefore, they haye claimed enharicing. of the'upper age-limit of 30 years so that, they-can participate in the recruitment process for the post.of GTT initiated by the respondents in.terms of vacancy notice dated 07.12.2023. ;
10. To substantiate the said claim. it is submitted by the applicants that in the . year'2018 by way-of-draft rules the respondents have-proposed the maximum age - . limit "of 30 years for the post' of 'GTT. In. response to the said draft Rules, the applicants and other private persons had submitted their objections to the draft Recruitment Rules: 2018 and had' requested to enhance the upper age limit. However, the respondents have not considered the same and subsequently notified the Recruitment Rules 20 19 by maintaining the upper age limit of 30 years for the:
post of GTT. -
WV
11. oh 24-° - 0.A.351/00057/2024 10:1. Thereafter with minor change in respect to insertion of language the respondents 'have published Recruitment Rules 2023 on 28.06.2023. for filling of the post of GIT, wherein again the upper age limit of 30 years has been maintained in the said rules. It is also stated that after publication of _ vacancy notice dated 11.07.2023 and 07.12.2023 some of the applicants _ herein have submitted their representation and had requested the respondents to allow them to submit their application by granting age relaxation, however, the 'same has not been considered. and thereby depriving the applicants to participate in the recruitment process.
10.2. It is the core submission of Ld. Counsel that since 2016 the respondents have not published any vacancy notice, therefore, the competent
-authority ought to have granted one-time age relaxation beyond the upper .
age limit in favour of private /general candidates.
It can be seen: that undisputedly after inviting objections before finalization of Recruitment Rules, 2019, the respondents by way of draft rules have invited objections from the stake holders. Subsequently, the Recruitment Rules, 2019 for filling up the post .of GTT has been notified on 05.11.2019 by the respondents. In the said RR, 2019, in Schedule I the age limit for direct recruits for the post of GTT has been stipulated that the age should not exceed 30 years. Since the Rule 2019 was notified, the grievance stated in the representation of the year 2018 has .
Jost his relevance.
11.1. At this stage, it is apt to mention that as noted hereinabove, after the _RR 2019, the respondents had again issued draft recruitment rules, 2023 for ' :
25 0.A. 351/00057/2024 the post of GIT for the purpose of. amendment in the RR and objections were.invited from the candidates. Finally, the Recruitment Rules, 2023 was -- notified on 28.6.2023 wherein the upper age limited has been prescribed as 30 years. Therefore, we are in agreement'with the submission of Ld. Counsel for the respondents that any representation submitted with regard to drat . Recruitment Rules, 2018, which are, as-such, referred by the applicants in this case has no relevance. It is reiterated that RR, 2023 govern the field of recruitment of GTT.
12, Further, it can be seen that, undisputedly, the applicants hetein have not challenged the Recrititment Rules, 2023 notified on -28.06,2023. which. govern. the ) method of recruitment of GTT in the A&N Administration. The applicants have -- 'also not challenged the vacancy notice dated 11/07/2023 and second vacancy -
notice dated 07/12/2023: - . , In absence of any challenge to the said Recruitment Rules, we find force in. the submission of the respondents that, it is not-open for the applicants to raise any grievance in respect to the terms of age limit as stipulated in the RR, 2023 and the vacancy notices.
13. It is also important to mention that the respondents by adhering to the terms of RR-2023. had issued vacancy notice wherein the upper age limit has been prescribed as 30 years and granted relaxation to the eligible categories as mentioned in Clause .3-of the said-vacancy notice.
. 26° - O.A.352 00s? 2024
e) | .A. 354/000 / ; ds, Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that there are no legal infirmities: . in the vacancy notice dated 11 7.2023 rand 7.12.2023 published by the respondents:
for filling up the-post of GTT.
14, It is, the ptievance of the applicant that after the vacancy notice dated:
7.12.2023 was issued. and .the applicants were not allowed to submit their-online application: by the respondents. being overaged; they have 'preferred their representations which. is required to be considered for redressal of their grievance. _ In this regard, it is: required to mention that, admittedly, the applicants have placed _ on. record copies of representations of applicants No. 1, 2 and 5 only.
14.1. We have' perused the-same and noticed that after the vacancy | notice dated 07.12.2023. was published, the applicant no. 1, had submitted: her online complaint on official website maintained "by Department of Labour & Employment on 28,12.2023- wherein it has 'been: stated by the said applicant that the age relaxation has been extended 'only to the candidates working in any government departments but same: relaxation has not been eranted to: the teachers working in the private school. They are waiting for the job since 2014: | and they care deprived due to upper age limit of 30 years, Since the . applicant js-aged stout 34 'years and working as teacher in private | school and she became overaged, her application on that around was rejected vérbally by the respondents. Therefore, she requested for one-~. time age relaxation. for . private school teachers to get job: in -
_ government establishment.
jth ai 2th 27° OAi 351/00057/2024 14:2. Further, it is noticed that the said complaint/representation of the applicant No. 1 herein was considered and replied by the Office of the Directorate of Education on 30.12.2023 and it was. intimated to the applicant that "to have reference to the OM no.AB 14017/48/2010- Estt.(RR),dated 31.12.2023 and dated 28.12.16. Further it is informed that the maximum upper age limit for all the Group B (Non-Gazetted) posts is 30 years as per the DoP&T guidelines. Further, all other age relaxation. is followed as per the DoP&T and A&N Administration guidelines issued from time to time." Accordingly the request of the. applicant No. 1 was not-acceded to by the respondents. (refer the copy of said representation dated 28.12.2023 and reply of the respondents stated below to the said representation).
14.3. Therefore, in our considered view, it cannot be said that the representation of said applicant No. 1 was not considered by the respondent. The applicant has not challenged the said decision of the respondents dated 30.12.2023 in the present O.A. 14.4, Further, the applicant No. 5 had stated to have submitted his representation datéd 26.7:2023 before the respondent No. 1. Upon examination of the said representation, it is noticed that the applicant No. 5. has stated. therein that she worked in KV No. II and Naval School and: possess 9 years of teaching experience. She had already applied for. PGT (History) but in provisional list, her name has not been included"in the provisional list/current recruitment list for the ff.
28 0.A. 351/00057/2024 year 2023224 due to overage for PGT (History). Now she is 37 yeats and 8 months of age, therefore, she has prayed for age relaxation upto 8 years.
It can be seen that the said applicant No. 5 had submitted. her application for the post of PGT and not for the post of GTT, It is apt to imention here that in. the present O.A., the applicants have sought . relief for issuance ofa. direction for enhancement of upper age limit and only after such consideration, conclude the process of recruitment for the. post of Graduate Trained Teacher (GTT). Therefore, in our considered view, it cannot be said that the applicant No. 5 is aggrieved with the vacancy fiotice published by the respondents for the post of. GTT. It is reiterated that the said applicant No. 5 in her representation has sought 8 years age relaxation for recruitment to the post of PGT | (History) and not for the post of GTT, the recruitment to which is in "question in-this O:A. .
'Under the circumstances, we are in agreement with the submission. of the respondent.that the said applicant No. 5 do not have | any specific 'grievance relating to the recruitment process for the post "of GTT. |
145. Further, it is noticed that after the vacancy notice dated 07.12.2023 was -published for the post of GTT, the applicant No. 2 had. submitted his representation. dated- 12/ 13.12.2023 addressed to Respondent No. 2 herein and had stated' that he was a Sarva Shiksha "
s oayt 'eo 290 # 0.A. 351/00057/2024 Contract: Teacher (SSCT) for 7 years for 4 months and then he got an opportunity to become a-regular staff as MTS in the year 2019 under Education Department of A&N Administration. Now, he is aged about 42 years and 2 months on the closing date of submission of | application form online for the post of GTT. Further, it is stated that he could not apply for the post of GIT (Physical Science) (Bengali. i Medium) due to non-creation of posts for 11 years i.e. from 2013 to 2023. Therefore, he has prayed for giving. him a chance to apply for the post of GIT Science (Bengali Medium) by extending the age ' relaxation at least 8 years.
It can be seen that the aforesaid applicant No. 2 had admitted that he is.aged above 42 yéars as on date and seeking more 8 years of age relaxation beyond the prescribed age limit. Such fictitious claim . . / cannot be' entertained by this Tribunal. Suffice to state that on the . basis of said representation, this Tribunal "cannot direct the respondents to enhance the upper age limit in violation of statutory provisions.
14:6 - At this stage, it.is apt to mention that, this Tribunal cannot entertain: the general grievance 'as ventilated by the applicants in the present O.A. Suffice to state that, this Tribunal cannot entertain any:
public interest litigation.
15. So far, the prayer sought in this O.A.-for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to enhance the upper age limit upto 8 years beyond the prescribed a 30 0.A. 351/00057/2024 upper age limit of 30 years is concerned, the same, in our considered view, is also not tenable for the reason that it is the sole prerogative of the employer to fix the eligibility criteria for recruitment of carididates for the post in question as well the competent authority has the sole authority to grant age relaxation, if any, to the candidates 'in terms of the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules, 2023.
We are' of the. considered opinion that it is not open for this Tribunal to interfere - with' the 'policy decision of the employer in respect to fixing the eligible criteria. recruitment to a. post. in question including the terms of upper age limit for the candidate. Even otherwise, this Tribunal cannot exercise its powers and direct the . respondents to enhance the upper age limit beyond the conditions stipulated in the >, RR, 2023 and in the vacancy, notice dated 11.7.2023 and 7.12.2023.
16. The Ld. Counsel has also relied upon judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2022) 4 SCC 643 High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma and submits that , the issue of grant of age relaxation in respect to the upper age limit was considered by the Hon'ble Apex, Court in the said case: and permitted the High Court as a one- time measure to allow those candidates who were within the cut-off age during the relevant recruitment. -year 2020-2021, since for the.last three years recruitment could-not be carried out for the posts of District Judge due to COVID.
16.1. . Further, he would argue that in the present case, after grant of one-time age relaxation of 8 years in the year 2016, the respondents have framed the recruitment rules for filling up the posts of GTT and notified ' the said rulés in the year 20 19 since then no vacancy notice was: issued except the recent vacancy notice dated 11.07.2023 and 7.12.2023. -
yf 31 O.A. 351/00057/2024 * 'Therefore, in light of the relied upon judgment, the respondents ought to have extended 'the upper age limit in respect to the General candidate who do not work under the A&N Administration.
16.2. We have perused the said judgment ic. High Court of Delhi v._ Devina Sharma reported in 2022 (4) SCC 643. In the said case it is . noticed that being. agetieved with the amendment i in reoruitment rules vide 7 : notification dated 11.02.2022 for the post of Delhi Judicial Service (DJS). . whereby it was_stipulated in the amended rules that a candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination, if he is not more than 32 years of . ' age onthe 43 day of January: of the year in which the applications for appointment-are invited.
16.3. | It. was the grievatice before the. Hon'ble High Court in the Writ ; Petition. that the High Court of Delhi had conducted last.examination in 2019' and thereafter had:-not coinducted examination in the year 2020. for institutional reasons and: due to the onset -of the COVID 19 pandemic. | _ Hence, the petitioners ceased to be cligile dué to their over age since the 7 : Delhi High Court has scheduled the examination in March, 2022. It was the gtievance of the petitioners therein that had the examination been: on _ schedule in 2020 and 2021,-such candidates would have qualified : for the
- examination. By considering the. said, the Hon'ble High- Court by way of interim order directed that the- date for filling up the online application 'should: be 'extended by the Registry. of High Court and examination ' schedule-was postponed.
of 32 ' 0.A, 351/00057/2024 16.4. Being aggrieved, the High Court on its administrative side approached the Hon'ble Apex Court. Similarly, in respect to the minimum age prescribed for the post of Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) was amended by the High Court of Delhi to the effect that candidates must have attained the age of 35 years and should not have attained the age of 45 years on the 1* day of J anuaty of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited. Being aggrieved with the said amendment in Rules published vide notification dated 26.12.2019, the candidates have filed the petition on the ground that Article 233 of the Constitution 'mandates only qualification for being appointed as a District Judge is continuous practice of 7 years as an advocate of a pleader and the respondent i-e. High Court therein framed the amended rules in breach of the Constitutional requirement. Challenge to the said amendment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on a judicial side by way of interim order dated 4,3.2022 directed to extend the date for filling up the online . application forms and, accordingly, the Registry has.. postponed the schedule of examination.
16.5. Being aggrieved, the High Court on administrative side approached the Hon'ble. Apex .Court by filing separate petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court while issuing notice on 11.3.2022, while issuing notice, in the SLP filed with respect to DIS examination (i.e. Devina Sharma, casé) as well in separate SLP filed with respect to DHJS examination ie. Nisa Tomar case by way of interim direction the original fi Bs.
33 _ 10.4. 351/00057/2024 petitioner i.e. respondent in the said SLPs were allowed to submit their ' applications to the outcome of the petitions.
16.6. In the aforesaid facts & circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the common judgment in Civil Appeal No, 2016 of 2022 High » Court of Delhi vy. Devina Sharma and Civil Appeal No, 2017-2020 of 2022 High Court of Delhi v. Nisa Tomar have dealt the issue pertaining to Delhi Judicial Service. (DJS) Examination and Delhi Higher. Judicial
- Service (DHJS) Examination separately in the said judgment passed on 14.3,.2022, ..
16.7. ° Wedeemit appropriate to appreciate the submission of the Ld. '
- Counsel for the applicant-herein, it is appropriate to refer the relevant observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court'in the said relied upon judgment High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma( supra), which reads as under:-
"13, We-would deal with the issues pertaining to DJS and DHJS separately.
14. In order to enable the Court to render a full and complete adjudication of the proceedings, the.writ petitions before the High Court . under Article 226 of the. Constitution stand transferred to this Court. We have had the benefit of the submissions urged on both-the.sides.
15, At the outset,.Mr.A D N Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Delhi has stated that the High Court did not conduct the examination which was scheduled to be held in 2020 and in . 2021 for DJS. The examination for 2020 could not be held for procedural . reasons Since the process for the earlier recruitment year, 2019, had not been completed. As regards the examination for 2021, it has been stated by the learned senior counsel that the examination was not held. due to the onset of the Covid -19 pandemic. In'this backdrop, learned senior. - counsel submitted that candidates who would otherwise qualify in terms of the upper age limit of 32 years if the exams were held in 2020 and -- '2021, would now become age barred since. the examination is being held pursuant to the notification which was issued on 23 February 2022. -
Op:
ue' 34 0.A. 351/00057/2024
16. Having regard to the above situation, it has been submitted by Mr-A DN Rao that this 'Court may, particularly having regard to the interim order dated 11March 2022, grant the same benefit to all candidates, who would have. "quali ified Sor the examination, had the examination been.
conducted in 2020-and 2021 on the basis of the rules as they then stood. In order to effectuate this, it has been submitted on behalf of the High Court of Delhi that the last date for the acceptance of applications may be suitably postponed by this Court, with. the consequence that the dates for' the examination may be rescheduled. The High Court has stated that if this Court were to accept the suggestion, a communication would be uploaded on the. website of the High Court for the intimation of all prospective applicants so that candidates who would-have been eligible \~ during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 may be considered for the . ensuing process as a one-on time measure.
17, The time schedule for conducting the recruitment process to the judicial service has been stipulated by the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) vs Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. The object and purpose of the diréctions of this Court has been to ensure that the recruitment process for the judicial service is conducted on schedule every year, subject to the rules of each High Court. The High Court of Dethi held its last examination :for. recruitment to DJS in 2019. Admittedly, no examination has been held in 2020 or in 2021. The examination for 2020 could not be conducted since the process for 2019 was. still to be completed. The examination for 2020 could not be held due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this backdrop, since the examination was not conducted for two recruitment years, the High Court has. after considering the issue stated before this Court through the learned senior counsel that as a one-time measure, this Court may accept the suggestion that candidates who would have qualified for the | examinations were they to-be held on schedule for recruitment years 2020 and 2021 'in terms of the rules as they then stood, may be permitted to appear for the ensuing examinations.
18, Having regard to the fact that the recruitment examination for DJS . has been last held in 2019 and.two recruitment years have elapsed in the meantime, we are of the view that the suggestion of the High Court should be accepted for this year. The consequence of the acceptance of the suggestion by this Court, would be that candidates who would have fulfilled the upper age limit of 32 years, for the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 would 'be eligible to participate in the examination for the ensuing .recruitment 'year 2022. The age-bar which they would now encounter is not of their own volition. The real element of hardship faced by such candidates has been remedied by the High Court and there is no reason for this court not to accept the suggestion. The examination cannot however, be postponed indefinitely nor can the candidates who have applied be left in a state of uncertainty. The existing candidates can have no grievance by the widening of the competition. In order to facilitate this exercise, we accept the suggestion of the High Court that the last date for the receipt of application forms shall be extended to.' 3April 2022 and the examination shall be held on 24 April 2022. We i 35 0.A,351/00057/2024 ;
direct that no impediment shall be caused in the conduct of the 'examination and no court shall issue any order of stay at variance with or contrary to the above. directions of this. Court.
19. A communication of the modified dates in the above terms shall be placed on the website.of the' High Court of Delhi. Dethi Higher Judicial Service Dethi Higher Judicial Service "20. The challenge before the High Court in the writ petitioner pertains to the determination of a minimum age requirement of 35 years for appearing for the Higher Judicial Service. Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandhlok, learned' Senior Counsel appearing on behalf oft the petitioners before the High Court subniits that: :
20.1. Article 233 of the Constitution does not contain any requirement of a minimum age and the only requirement ts that in order to qualify for appointment as District Judge, a person should have been an advocate or a pleader for not less than 7 years.
20.2. No minimum age requirement is specified for appointment to the judicial service as a consequence of which, candidates who complete 10-years of service in- the judicial service would be eligible for being appointed to the Higher Judicial Service before they attain the age of thirty-five.
20.3. The High: Court itself had removed the minimum age requirement of 35 years in 2019 which has been reintroduced in | February 2022.
20.4, Persons, such as the petitioners before the High Court should therefore be given: an opportunity of appearing. for the-
examinations for the reason that until the rules were modified in February 2022, they would have been eligible to appear for the examination if it was held at-the material time in 2020 and 2021.
21. The submission which has been urged by Mr Chandhiok, . learned Senior Counsel has been also adopted by Mr Sidharth Luthra, Ms Anitha 'Shenoy and Mr Dama Seshadiri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel as.well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenors'and the intervenor-in-person." 23. In order to consider the tenability of the submission, it must be noted at the outset that the First National Judicial Pay Commission, commonly known as the Shetty Commission, recommended the introduction of the requiremént that for direct recruitment to-the cadre of District Judges, candidates should be between the age of 35 and 45 years with an upper age relaxation of three years for SC/ST candidates. Paragraph 10.93 of the recommendations of the Shetty . Commission is extracted below: High Court Of Delhi vs Devina Sharma on 14 March, 2022 y 4 eb.
36 OLA. 351/00057/2024 ",..we recommend that the candidates for direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judges should be between 35 and 45 years and the upper age may be relaxed by 3 years for SC/ST candidates." .
24, The recommendations of the Shetty Commission were initially» followed by an order of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in All India Judges Association vs Union of India. By the order of this Court, the States-and the Union Territories to whom a copy of the report had been submitted were directed to submit their responses . tothe Union of India expeditiously. Eventually, the report of the Shetty Commission resulted in the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in All India Judges Association vs Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 274. The rules of several High Courts provide 'that for recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service, the candidate Should be of a minimum age of 35, with a maximum age limit of 45 years. For instance, the rules pertaining to the UP Higher Judicial Service were 'noticed in a decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Hirandra Kumar vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The prescription .of a rule providing for a minimum age requirement or. maximum age for entry into service is essentially a matter of policy. After noticing the earlier precedents on the subject, this Court in Hirandra Kumar (supra) observed that the determination of cut-offs lies in the realm of policy.
25. The submission .of the appellants, to the effect that the prescription of a minimum age would be contrary to the constitutional provision contained in Article 233 of the ' Constitution, cannot be accepted. Article 233(2) of the Constitution stipulates that a-person. not already in the service of the Union or of a State shall only be eligible to be appointed a District Judge if he has been, for not.less than 7 years, an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment. Clause (1) of Article 233 stipulates that appointments of persons, posting and promotion of District Judges shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High-Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the State. Article 235 entrusts to the High Court control over the district courts and courts subordinate (2020) 17 SCC 401 ("Hirandra Kumar") thereto including the posting and promotion of and the grant of leave to persons belonging to the judicial service to the State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge. The. Constitution has prescribed the requirement to the effect that a person shall be eligible for appointment as a District Judge only if he has been an advocate or a pleader for at least seven years. What this means is that a person who has not fulfilled the seven year norm is not eligible. The Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule making power by the High Courts to regulate the conditions of service or appointment.
26. The silences of the Constitution have to be and are , supplemented by those. entrusted with the duty to apply its provisions. The. Constitution being .silent in regard:to the prescription of a minimum age, the High Courts in the exercise of af!
-'-
37 0.A. 351/00057/2024 their rule making authority are entitled to prescribe such a requirement, Direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service is intended to be from. members of the Bar who have sufficient experience. The 'post of a District Judge is at a senior level.in the -
cadre, Age: is not extraneous to the acquisition of maturity and experience, especially in judicial institutions which handle real problems and confront challenges to liberty and justice, The High Courts are well within their domain in prescribing a requirement which ensures that candidates. with. sufficient maturity enter the fold of the higher judiciary. The requirement that a candidate Should be at least.35.- years of age is intended to sub-serve.. this:
Except for a.short period when the requirement of'a minimum age of thirty- five was deleted, the Delhi High Court has followed the norm, 27, In the. clrcumstances, we are of the view that there is-no merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners before the: High Court and the intervenors who have not fulfilled the age requirement of 35 years. Though for a short period of about a:year, the High Court had deleted the requirement of a minimum age of 35 years for entry into the Higher Judicial Service, the High Court has set right the rule so-as to bring it into conformity with the recommendations of the Shetty Commission. The.detetion of the minimum age requirement of 35 yearscin 2019 may have been guided by the need to attract a larger pool of applicants to DHJS. But the reinstatement of a minimum age requirement of 35 years is a matter of policy. This conforms to the recommendation of the Shetty. Commission. Hence, there is no 'valid basis: for this court to hold that the requirement that a candidate for the DHJS should be at least thirty-five years of age is invalid. We do not find any merit in the challenge which has been urged on behalf of the appellants to that extent.
28. During the course of the hearing, this Court has been apprised of the fact that several. applicants for the higher judicial service examination would have qualified in terms of the upper age limit.
of 45 years in 2020 or, as the case may be, 2021._As a matter of fact, MrA DN Rao indicates. that he has instructions to the effect that some of those candidates may already have or would be in the process of moving petitions before the High Court, The 'reasons which have weighed with this Court in allowing the High Court,-as a one-time measure, to permit candidates for the DJS examination Who had qualified in''terms of the upper age limit of 32 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021, should on a parity of reasoning be extended to candidates for the DHJS examination who would have qualified in terms of the upper age limit of 45 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 during which no examinations could take place for the reasons which have been noticed earlier.
- 29. In order to obviate any further litigation and uncertainty, we permit the High Court as a one-time measure to allow those ' "4 t 38 - 0.A.351/00057/2024 candidates who were within the age cut-off of 45 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 to participate in the ensuing DHIS examinations.
30. For the Dethi'Higher Judicial Service, the last date for the receipt of applications shall stand extended to 26 March 2022 while the examination shall be held on 3 April 2022,.in those terms as stated before this-court by senior counsel representing the High Court.
31. The High Court .of Dethi shall upload a corrigendum indicating the above relaxation on its website.
32, ' The appeats are partly allowed in the above terms. 'The writ petitions before the High shall stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
16.8. It can be.seen that due to COVID pandemic, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi could not conduct the examination scheduléd to be held in the year ' 2020-2021 for filling up the post of DJS & DHJS. In the meantime; the minimum age limit as well upper age limit was amended by the Delhi High Court in the relevant service rules. Under the said circumstances, the 'Hon'ble Apex .-Court allowed the, applicants/candidates who were stated to - be' eligible in the year 2019 to 2021 'to submit their applications for the scheduled exam for the year 2022 granted one-time age relaxation in the
- peculiar fact and circumstances prevailing at that time.
| In the present case, it is noticed that the recruitment rules were, " initially notified in the year 2019 and subsequently same was amended and notified on 28.06.2023. In the. meantime, it is not in dispute that various © posts. of GTT and -other posts of education department were declared "deemed abolished". In this regard, it is apt to mention that the applicants have annexed the copies of information supplied to one of the resident of hae aig 39 0.A. 351/00057/2024 South Andaman namely Abdul Arish by the respondents under RTI Act vide letter dated 03.01 2024 atid details of revival of the said post by the Ministry of Education vide letter dated 19.09.2023 as well letter dated 13.10.2023 (Annexure A/14 collectively. refer). Thereafter, on finalization of: the | Recruitment Rules and on due approval of revival of various posts of GTT, the respondents have issued vacancy notice to fill up the vacancies for the post of GTT. Therefore, the parity which has been sought by the applicant in respect to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble-Apex Court in Devina case (supra) in. our considered view does not come to their aid.
- 16.9. At the same time, it is apt to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
-p ara-24 by referring to the judgment passed in Hirandra Kumar v. High Court of Allahabad had held that:
"prescription of a rule providing for a minimum age requirement or maximum age for entry into service is essentially a matter of policy. After noticing the 'earlier precedence of the subject, this court in Hirandra Kumar observed: that the determination of cut-offs lies in the realm of policies."
16.10. And the Hon'ble Apex Court denied the claim of the appellant that -- _ the prescription of minimum age would be contrary to-the: Constitutional provision contained in, Article 233 of the Constitution. Further, it has been 'held that a person who has not fulfilled the seven year norms is not eligible to be appointed as District Judge. The Constitution does not preclude the ~ exercise of the rule making power by High Courts to regulate: the condition Gi 40 0.A. 351/00057/2024 of service or appointment and accordingly held that there is no merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners before the . _ High Court and the intervenors who have not-fulfilled the age requirement of ° 35 years.
Therefore, it can be seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the decision of the Rule making authority for prescribing the age limit for the .
post of DHJS.
16.11. _ In the present case, as noted hereinabove, the competent authority by following the instructions issued by the Govt. of India, DoP&T and CPC recommendations has framed the Recruitment Rules by exercising, powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, as per the terms of RR, 2023, by granting permissible age relaxation to the various categories that too by exercising powers under Rule | 5 of the Rules, the competent authority has, as such, granted benefit of age relaxation to certain category of candidates.
16:12. Therefore, we do not find any legal infirmities in respect to the terms stipulated in the RR 2023 and the vacancy notices dated 11.7.2023 as well 7.12.2023 and any grievance against the said terms and conditions as
- ventilated by the applicants herein is not tenable.
17. ThelLd. Counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon' ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalam Organics Limited v. Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 221 and submitted that the competent authority ought to :
41 0.A. 351/00057/2024 have exercised its power to grant age relaxation is concerned, in our considered view the said judgment is also not helpful in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
17.1. It is noticed that the Hon*ble Apex Court while answering question . whether the Court can direct the Central Government to issue notification, held as under:-
"35, Issuance of a notification under Section 11-C of the Act is in the nature of subordinate legislation. Directing the -Government_to issue such a notification. would amount to take a policy decision in a particular manner, 'which is impermissible. This Court dealt with this aspect recently in Census Commr. vy. R.. Krishnamurthy, 'The following discussion from the said judgment is useful and worth a quote: (SCC. pp: 806-07, paras 25-26 & 29).
"25, Interference with the policy decision and issue of a mandamus to frame a. policy i ina particular manner are absolutely different. The Act has conferred power. 'on the Central Government to issue notification regarding the manner in which the census has to be carried out and the Central Government has .issued notifications, and the competent authority has issued directions. It is not within the domain of the court to legislate. The courts do interpret the law and in such interpretation certain 'creative process: 'is involved. The courts have the jurisdiction-to ---
declare the'law as unconstitutional. That:too, where it is called for. The court may also fill up the gaps in certain spheres applying the doctrine of constitutional silence or abeyance. But, the-courts are not to plunge into policy-making by adding-something to the policy by way of issuing a writ of mandamus. There the judicial -restraint is called for remembering what we have stated in the beginning. The courts are 'required.to understand 'the policy decisions framed by the executive. If a policy decision.or a notification is arbitrary, it may invite the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution. But when the notification was not . under assail and the same is in consonance with the Act, it is really unfathomable how: the High Court could issue directions as to the manner in which a census. would-be carried out by adding certain aspects. It is, in fact, issuance of a direction for framing a policy in a specific manner.
26. In this context, we may refer to a three-Judge Bench decision in Suresh Seth v. Commr., Indore Municipal Corpn., wherein a prayer was made before this Court to issue directions for appropriate -- amendment in the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 so that a person may be debarred. from simultaneously holding two elected offices, namely, that of a Member of the Législative Assembly and also pe ay 42 O.A. 351/00057/2024 _ 4 ofa Mayor of a Municipal Corporation. Repelling the said submission, the Court held: (SCC pp..288-89, para 5) '5.... In our opinion, this is a matter of policy for the elected representatives of people to decide and no direction in this regard can be.issued by the Court. That apart this Court cannot issue any, direction to the legislature to make any particular kind of enactment. Under our constitutional scheme Parliament and Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign power to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a direction to enact a particular piece of legislation. In Supreme Court Employees Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, SCC para 51 it 'has been held that.no court can direct a legislature to enact a particular: law.- 'Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by way-of a subordinate legislation. pursuant to the delegated authority of a legislature, such executive authority cannot be asked to enact a law which it has been empowered to ' do, under the delegated legislative authority. This view has been reiterated in State of: J&K'v. A.R. Zakki. In A.K. Roy v. Union of India it was held that no mandamus can be issued to enforce an Act which-has. been passed by the legislature."
P.4.6.6.66.6.0.0.6.0.9.6.9.6.6.6.6.4 29, In this context, it is fruitful to refer to the authority in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v.-Union of India, wherein it has been expressed thus: |
63. ~--.... It is again not for this Court to consider the relative merits of the different political theories or economic policies. ..... This Court has the power to strike down a law on the ground of want of authority, but the Court will not sit in appeal over the policy of Parliament in enacting a law."-
(emphasis supplied)
36. As can be seen from the:extracted portion of the said judgment, in Supreme 'Court Employees' Welfare Assn. vy, Union of India, it was categorically' held-that (SCC p. 219, para 51) no court can-direct a' legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by way of subordinate legislation pursuant to-the delegated authority of a legislature, such executive authority cannot be asked to enact the law which it has been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority.
37. We may also refer to the judgment of this Court in Common Cause v. Union of India. In that case, though the legislature had- made ~ amendments in the Delhi Rent Act, it was left to the Government to notify the date of coming into force of the said amendments. The Government did not notify any date. A writ was filed seeking issuance of mandamus to the Government to notify the date, which was ~ 'dismissed by the High Court. While-approving the said decision in the ee oe 43 0.A,351/00057/2024 aforesaid judgment, the Court referred to various earlier judgments on the subject. It was held that not. only is Parliament empowered to give
-such a power to the executive to decide when the Act is to be brought into force, but also held 'that mandamus cannot be issued to the Governnient to notify the amendments. In the process, the Court also made the following observations which are relevant in the present context: (SCC p, 262, para 27) "27. From the facts placed before us it cannot be said that the Government is not alive to.the problem or is desirous of ignoring the will of Parliament. When the legislature itself had vested the power in the Central Government to notify the date from which the Act would come into force, _ then, the Central. Government is entitled to take into.
_ consideration various facts including the facts set out above while considering when the Act should be brought into force or not.
No mandamus can be issued to the Central Government _ to issue the notification contemplated under Section 1 (3) of the Act to bring the Act:into' force, keeping in view the facts brought on record and the consistent view of this Court."
38. Various judgments cited by the appellant would have no application in the instant case as all these judgments pertain to judicial review: of administrative action. In such cases, power of the court to issue mandamus certainly exists when it is found that a public authority/executive | is not discharging its statutory duty.
39. The matter can be Jooked into from another angle as well. When "power" is given tothe Central Government to issue a notification to the effect not to recover-duty of.excise or recover lesser duty than what is normally payable under the Act, for deciding whether to issue such a notification or not, there may be various considerations in the mind of the Government. Merely because conditions laid in the said provisions are satisfied, would not. be a reason. to necessarily issue such a notification. It is purely a.policy matter. No doubt, the principle against arbitrariness has been extended to subordinate legislation as well [see Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India]. At the same time, the scope of judicial review in such cases is very limited. Where the statute vests a discretionary power in an administrative authority, the court would not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless it-is made with oblique end or extraneous purposes or upon extraneous considerations, or arbitrarily, without applying its mind to the relevant considerations, or where it is not guided by any norms which are relevant to'the object to be achieved." ) 17.2. From the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is apt to mention that in the present case as noted hereinabove, the applicant has oM-
44 0A. 351/00057/2024 not challenged:the legality and validity of the Recruitment Rules, 2023, nor ~ the vacancy notice. Even otherwise, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that _ in a matter. of policy the. Court will not sit in appeal over the said policy in enacting @ law. The prayer sought in this O.A. for a direction upon the respondents to enhance the upper age limit by 8 years in light of judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, in our considered view is, as such, not acceptable.
18. - At this juncture, it will be. profitable to refer to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. v. Shanti Devi _ (Civil Appeal No. 5207 of 2022) decided on 08.08.2022 in the said case, the issue which fell. for determination before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether it is justifiable for the Court to direct the State to consider the claim of the candidates for grant-of age relaxation in making appointments to the post of Mukhya Sevika, While quashing and setting aside the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court to grant age relaxation, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that no individual candidate can claim a vested right to age relaxation which lies in the discretion of the appointing authority. A candidate cannot havea vested right to claim:an exemption from a uniformly applicable -criterion. A selective grant of age relaxation will cause serious prejudice in the process of selection and render the process arbitrary. The.Hon'ble Apex, Court in following paras held as under:-
"of XXXXXX 14, The court was apprised by counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that under -Rule 5(4)(ii) read-with Rule 158 of the UP Service Rules of 1992, the Department received a list of 70,000 eligible Anganwadi workers against 975 vacant posts of Mukhya Sevika. The # 45 0.A. 351/00057/2024.
UP Service Rulés of 1992 stipulate that the: upper age'limit for the post of Mukhya. Sevika under Rule 5(4)(if) is 50 years as on the first day of recruitment year.
15,.In the present case, the State uniformly applied the prescribed age limit of°50 years to all applicants considered under Rule 5(4)(ii) read with Rule 15B of the UP Service Rules of 1992. On the direction of the Single Judge of the High Court on 11 April 2018, the State applied its mind and considered the representation for the grant of an age relaxation. to the respondent twice - on 3 October, 2018 and on 13 November, 2018. In exercise of its discretionary power, the appellant . 'decided that the respondent was not eligible to be Branted the benefit of an age relaxation. ;
No _ individual candidate -can claim a_vested right to age relaxation which lies in the discretion of the appointing authority. The respondent cannot: claim age relaxation under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules,. 1992 .as.a matter of right. Eligibility criteria should_be uniform and .. 'there cannot be scope.of arbitrary selections. A candidate cannot have a. vested right to claim an -exemption'from a uniformly. applicable _ criterion: -A_selective: grant of an age relaxation will cause serious ~ prejudice in the process of-selection and render the process arbitrary.
16.2For. the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High. Court of Judicature at Allahabad (at Lucknow) dated 13 December 2019 in Special Appeal Defective No 579 of 2019. In consequence, the writ petition which was instituted by the respondent shall stand dismissed.".
18:1. In backdrop of the aforesaid dictum, we reiterate that the applicants have no vested right to claim-age relaxation as prayed for in this O.A.
19. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not. find any reason t0 interfere with the policy decision of respondents.to conduct recruitment process in respect to vacancy notice dated 11.7.2023 and 7.12.2023 which is as such in consonance with' _ the provision of the recruitment rules and the prayer sought in this O.A. to enhance 'the upper age limit stipulated in the RRs as well' the vacancy notice is not.
acceptable.
ye 46 | | 0.A. 351/00057/2024 'S) .
20. In view of the above, the O.A. lacks merit and same is dismissed at ' admission stage. No costs.
chit as} (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) (SuchittAKr-Das) -
Administrative Member Judicial Member Sp
--