AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The Dental College & Hospital of ESIC, issued an advertisement on 09.03.2020, proposing to select candidates for the post of Tutor. Seven
vacancies were notified. The age limit was stipulated as 30 years, to be reckoned w.r.t. 31.03.2020. However, the selection did not take place and the
advertisement itself was cancelled vide order dated 01.12.2020. Shortly thereafter, another advertisement was issued on 21.12.2020 for the same post.
The only difference is that, this time 15 vacancies were notified; and the age is to be reckoned w.r.t. 11.01.2021.
The applicant was one of the candidates, in response to advertisement dated 09.03.2020. She was within the age limit, w.r.t. the date, indicated
therein. However, she becomes overaged, if it is to be reckoned with reference to 11.01.2021. This OA is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents
to treat her as being within age limit, as regards the subsequent advertisement also.
The applicant contends that the respondents have cancelled advertisement issued on 09.03.2020 and almost in continuation thereof, another
notification was issued on 21.12.2020. It is stated that in matters of this nature, the applications received in response to the earlier advertisement are
treated as holding good for the subsequent advertisement also, but such facility was not extended by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that her client cannot be treated as disqualified for no fault of her, when the only reason is the
cancellation of the earlier advertisement.
Learned counsel for the respondents, who took instructions at the stage of admission, submits that once the advertisement dated 09.03.2020 was
cancelled, the selection is required to be strictly in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the subsequent advertisement dated 21.12.2020.
The only question in this OA is as to whether the applicant can be treated as within the age limit for the post of Tutor. It is not in dispute that she
was within the age limit, when she submitted an application in response to the advertisement dated 09.03.2020. For whatever reason, the respondents
cancelled the said advertisement on 01.12.2020 and within weeks thereafter, a fresh advertisement was issued on 21.12.2020.The only difference
between these two is about the number of vacancies. Eight more posts were added.
It is not uncommon that whenever corrigendum or fresh advertisement is issued, the applications that are received in response to the earlier
advertisement/ notification, are treated as holding good for the subsequent one also. In this case, except that the vacancies were increased, no change
of the recruitment process has taken place.
We, therefore, allow the O.A. and direct that the applicant as well as other persons, who submitted their applications in response to the
advertisement dated 09.03.2020 and are within the age limit with reference to 31.03.2020, shall be treated as within the age limit, in relation to the
advertisement dated 21.12.2020 also and their cases shall be processed, in accordance with law.
Pending MA also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order by Dasti.