Charles J vs Union Of India & Ors

Braj Mohan Agrawal, Member A

The applicant is working as Project Technician, Model Shop (SEG) under the 4th Respondent. He joined service as Apprentice Trainee on 05.12.2005 and was appointed as Project Technician on 01.02.2012 and is continuing as such. The applicant submits that the 4th respondent vide a notification issued in September 2010 invited applications for the post Member Support Staff Grade II. Both the applicant and 7th respondent applied for the same and were called for an interview and practical test. The applicant was ranked No.5 in the final rank list and the 7th respondent was ranked No.2 (Annexure A-2). Though the 7th respondent was screened out as he had crossed the upper age limit by more than four months in spite of applying the permissible relaxation under relevant rules, it was later learnt that the 4th respondent had arbitrarily given further age relaxation to the 7th respondent in order to ensure that he is appointed in the said post. The applicant further contends that pursuant to Annexure A-4 complaint, the 5th respondent has issued Annexure A9 communication to the 6th respondent dropping all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A4 complaint of the applicant. Annexure A9 communication is highly illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

Aggrieved by the above, the applicant has approached this Tribunal and sought the following reliefs:-

(i) To call for the records leading to Annexure A9 communication and set aside the same

(ii) To direct respondents 5 & 6 to take further necessary actions on Annexure A-4 complaint submitted by the applicant

(iii)To declare that the 4th respondent has no authority to grant a further age relaxation to the 7th respondent beyond what was notified by the Government

(iv) To issue such other orders or directions as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

The respondents submitted that the 7th respondent had applied and participated in the selection process pursuant to the notification issued in September 2010 for the post of Member Support Staff Grade II (Annexure A-11). The 7th respondent had been included in the Rank List at Rank No.2, however he had been initially screened out. Thereafter, the then Director General of C-DAC decided to grant him relaxation in age by 4 months by virtue of the fact that he had already served C-DAC for 6 years.

In his rejoinder the applicant has submitted that the actions of the official respondents are illegal and arbitrary since Annexure A-11 had prescribed the last date for submitting online application as 01.10.2010 and the last date of receipt of print copy as 04.10.2010. It is to be noted that Annexure A-10 application for age relaxation has been submitted by the 7th respondent on 09.11.2010 much after the entire proceedings as submission of applications have been closed and the 7th respondent was screened out.

Though respondent No.7 was served notice, he has not been represented.

In reply to the RTI application produced at Annexure A-3 the Screening Committee has recorded that:-

“Shri Binukumar V, Application No.MS-SII-NCVT-FTR-36020, whose date of birth is 30.05.1977. Even after applying age relaxation applicable to OBC (Non-creamy layer category) he is age over by 4 months. As per advertisement, age limit for the post is 30 years as on 01.10.2010. He has attached a representation along with the application, for age relaxation. Since he is age over as per advertised standards he is screened out.”

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in District Collector v. Sundari Devi {1990 (3) SCC 655} dated 20.04.1990 and the relevant para is reproduced:-

“6. It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.”

From Annexure A-11 (application form) it is evident that last date for submitting online application is 01.10.2010 and last date for receipt of print copy is 04.10.2010. It is observed that thereafter, the then Director General of C-DAC decided to grant relaxation to the 7th respondent by 4 months on his application dated 10.11.2010 after Respondent No.7 being screened out on age eligibility criterion by the Screening Committee in an arbitrary manner which is considered to be illegal. Against the representation submitted by the applicant, Annexure A-9 communication dated 11.12.2017 issued by the 5th Respondent,Chief Vigilance Officer C-DAC recording that matter to be put to rest and no further action to be taken against grievance petitions from the applicant, is unsustainable.

As a result, OA is allowed and disposed off with the following directions:-

(a) The decision of the then Director General, C-DAC in respect of relaxing the age limit after closure of application submission process and completion of screening process on 24.11.2010 is considered arbitrary and quashed.

(b) Impugned order Annexure A-9 is set aside to the extent that it allowed the matter to rest and contemplated no further action on the genuine grievance of the applicant.

(c) We direct the respondents 1 & 4 to redress the grievance of the applicant afresh, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

No order as to costs.

(Dated the 28th November, 2025.)