Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The issue raised was that all of them were entitled to even participate in the open category and raised the grievance that they could not be compelled to opt to compete either in the open category or in the departmental category. They claimed that both channels were open to them and since merit of participants who swam in both channels was tested with respect to the same examination, the staked a claim to be promoted in the open category.

9. The response of the department was that having opted to compete in the departmental quota category, the five could not stake a claim to be promoted in the open category, and vide decisions impugned in the writ petitions, the verdict of the Central Administrative Tribunal is in favour of Delhi Police and against the petitioners. The reason given by the Tribunal is that having opted to compete in the departmental category quota, the petitioners cannot claim any right to be promoted in the open category. As per the respondents, the upper age limit was 25 years, relaxable for 5 years for candidates belonging to the SC/ST category and 3 years for OBC candidates, as per condition c(i)(ii) of the two advertisements, and since the petitioners were above said age, they availed the benefit of upper age relaxation limit admissible to departmental candidates of Delhi Police and thus it was urged that the petitioners could not compete in the open category.

35 years in the case of general candidate and 40 years in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Candidates."

15. From a perusal of Rule 27-A would reveal that for direct recruitment against Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts departmental candidates are entitled to an age relaxation.

16. Delhi Police is totally oblivious to the fact that as per Rule 27- A, Delhi Police personnel who compete for direct recruitment posts are entitled to age relaxation and thus for the post in question, which is a Group 'C' post, whenever appointment is to be made by direct recruitment all personnel of Delhi Police who are otherwise eligible can compete taking benefit of age relaxation as contemplated by Rule 27-A. Delhi Police is under a mistaken notion that only for the Limited Departmental Competitive Test benefit of age relaxation, provided by Rule 7 is available.

17. We highlight that age limit prescribed in Rule 7 pertains to when appointment is being made through the Limited Departmental Competitive Test and Rule 27-A pertains to when Delhi Police personnel compete when direct recruitment is effective in Group 'C' and Group 'D' post.

18. In other words, be it when appointment is to be made by direct recruitment or through a Limited Departmental Competitive Test, Delhi Police personnel would be entitled to age relaxation contemplated by Rule 7 (for LDCE) and Rule 27-A (for direct recruitment). Further, these candidates would have a right to compete at both levels and Delhi Police cannot conduct a unified selection process restricting option to only one.

22. While dismissing the writ petitions we would only observe that for the future, Delhi Police should be careful while making appointments and lest there be any confusion it would be advisable to make appointments by selection in the direct recruitment quota by a separate examination and selection by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination through a separate examination. Further, Delhi Police should not confuse age relaxation stipulated under Rule 7, which pertains to Limited Departmental Competitive Examination with age relaxation stipulated in Rule 27-A pertaining to appointment by direct recruitment.