AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Aggrieved by the rejection of her request for grant of age relaxation by the impugned order of the 4th respondent, dated 24,11,2017, the applicant has filed the OA to set aside the said orders and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint her as Assistant Professor in Law with all consequential monetary and other benefits, on the basis of the age relaxation order issued earlier on 15.02.2016 by the 4th respondent or by granting age relaxation and to passCentral Administrative Tribunal such further orders as are necessary to meet the ends of justice and award costs and thus render justice.
The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows: The applicant obtained her Bachelor of Law degree in May 1994 from Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, affiliated to Pondicherry University. In May 1997, she obtained a Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administration from Pondicherry University. Thereafter, she obtained her Master of Law degree in May 2001 from Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Pondicherry University. In June 2002, she qualified in the National Eligibility Test (NET) for Lectureship. Subsequently, in June 2007, she obtained a Master’s Degree in Human Rights from Pondicherry University. In December 2012, she was awarded a Ph.D. by Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Pondicherry. On 08.08.2015, the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, issued a Notification inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in Law. Pursuant thereto, on 12.08.2015, the applicant submitted a representation to the Lieutenant Governor, Puducherry, seeking issuance of a certificate relaxing the prescribed age limit. As no response was received, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1186 of 2015. By order dated 26.08.2015, this Tribunal passed an interim order directing the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to permit the applicant toCentral Administrative Tribunal appear for the interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Law. Thereafter, the applicant filed an M.A. seeking a direction to the UPSC to declare the result. On 02.11.2016, the UPSC published the select list. Subsequently, on 09.11.2016, this Tribunal directed the UPSC to produce the relevant records in a sealed cover in O.A. No.1186 of 2015. By final order dated 19.12.2016, this Tribunal found that the applicant's name had not been included in the select list. Consequently, the applicant filed O.A. No.275 of 2017. The said O.A. was disposed of by this Tribunal on 04.04.2017. Thereafter, on 22.05.2017, the applicant submitted a representation to the Lieutenant Governor, Puducherry. The said representation was rejected by the 1st respondent by order dated 24.11.2017. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the applicant has filed the present O.A.
The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had been working as an Assistant Professor in Law for more than eight years on a continuous basis, discharging duties on par with regular Assistant Professors, and had a legitimate expectation of being considered for regular appointment. He submitted that the applicant seeks age relaxation from the Lieutenant Governor, Puducherry, by invoking theCentral Administrative Tribunal power of relaxation under Clause 5 of the Recruitment Rules, 2013, governing the post of Assistant Professor in Law in Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Puducherry.
He further submitted that, pursuant to the UPSC Notification dated 08.08.2015 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor in Law, prescribing the upper age limit as 38 years, the applicant submitted a representation dated 12.08.2015 to the Lieutenant Governor seeking age relaxation, taking into account her service of about seven years as Assistant Professor in Law in the same institution. However, the said representation was not considered within the relevant period.
It was further submitted that, though the applicant was called for interview on 22.09.2015, she was initially prevented from participating on the ground that she had not produced an age-relaxation certificate/order from the Lieutenant Governor. Subsequently, upon furnishing an undertaking to produce the same, she was permitted to participate in the interview. The applicant contends that she possessed all the requisite educational qualifications and experience for the post. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant's name was not included in the select list on account of non-production of the age-relaxation certificate before publication of the results and that she was instead placed in the reserve list.Central Administrative Tribunal According to him, the applicant had fulfilled all the prescribed qualifications and had already rendered continuous service as Assistant Professor in Law in the same Government Law College.
He submitted that the applicant had entered service at the age of 30 years with the requisite qualifications, including a Master's degree and NET qualification, and had thereafter rendered more than eight years of continuous service without any adverse remarks regarding her work or conduct. She had discharged the same duties as regular Assistant Professors and was paid the prescribed pay scale. It was contended that similarly situated Lecturers working in other Government colleges had been regularised, whereas the lecturers of the Law College had been subjected to discriminatory treatment.
The learned counsel further submitted that the Lieutenant Governor had subsequently granted a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the applicant on 15.02.2016, pursuant to which she was permitted to participate in the interview. However, the respondents subsequently rejected her claim on the ground that age relaxation was permissible only in respect of Government employees and not contractual employees, and that there was no provision for granting age relaxation to contractualCentral Administrative Tribunal employees. It was contended that such reasoning amounted to a misapplication of the applicant's claim, as she sought age relaxation in the context of direct recruitment and not merely on the basis of her status as a contractual employee.
He further submitted that the respondents had failed to properly consider the applicant's claim and had not applied their mind to the relevant circumstances, particularly her long and continuous service in the same Government institution, her qualifications and experience, and the earlier NOC granted by the competent authority. According to the learned counsel, the applicant, though appointed on a contractual basis, had been performing the same duties as regular Assistant Professors and had been receiving the same pay scale.
Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the applicant's long years of service, requisite qualifications, experience, and satisfactory record ought to have been duly considered while examining her request for age relaxation. He therefore contended that the refusal to grant age relaxation was arbitrary and unjustified and prayed that appropriate relief be granted to the applicant.
The learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the following judicial decisions in support of his contentions and prayed for the relief sought in the present OA:
Judgment, dated 21.01.2008 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UPSC Vs Dr. Jamuna Kurup & others (2008 (11) SCC 10)
Judgment, dated 15.11.2011 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DSSB Vs Preeti Rathi, in WP (c ) No.1641/2011
Judgment, dated 11.08.2021 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Syed Ahmar Ali Hashmi Vs UPSC reported in AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 1316
Judgment, dated 07.12.2022 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prashant Kumar Vs Govt of NCT Delhi in WP.(C ) No.1659/2021
Judgment, dated 28.11.2024 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1611/2022, in the case of Mrs. Shikha Shokeen Vs Govt of NCT Delhi.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent– UPSC submitted that the applicant was awarded marks based on her performance in the interview and her academic record. On the basis of the overall merit of the candidates, the applicant was placed in the Reserve list. He therefore contended that the applicant's allegation that her name was not included in the select list for want of an age-relaxation certificate, and that she was consequently placed in the Reserve list, was wholly without merit and amounted to an unwarranted allegation against the UPSC, an independent constitutional body.
He further submitted that the applicant's contention that her interview was concluded within a few minutes and that the Interview Board had not adequately assessed her suitability was untenable. The duration of an interview cannot, by itself, be a criterion for determining the fairness or validity of the selection. The marks were awarded having regard to the candidate's overall performance, academic record and suitability for the post. The members of the Interview Board were experts in their respective fields and were competent to assess the knowledge, expertise and other qualities of the candidates.
The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had earlier raised substantially the same grievance in O.A. No.275 of 2017, contending that she had not been included in the select list for want of an age-relaxation certificate. This Tribunal, by order dated 04.04.2017, disposed of the said O.A. by directing the respondents to obtain a decision from the Lieutenant Governor, Puducherry, on the question of age relaxation. The relevant portion of the order reads:
“The applicant's case for age relaxation was recommended by the Govt. of Puducherry with was taken up with the UPSC. However, the UPSC had not agreed with the proposal. As per the relevant rules, the authority competent to relax age requirement is the Lieutenant Governor and only consultation with UPSC is mandatory. As the final decision would still lie with the Lieutenant Governor, the respondents are directed to seek the decision of the Lieutenant Governor in the matter within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”
He submitted that, pursuant to the said direction, the Government of Puducherry, by order dated 24.11.2017, communicated the rejection of the applicant's request for relaxation of the upper age limit. The rejection was based, inter alia, on the grounds that age relaxation was available to Government employees and not to contractual employees and that the Lieutenant Governor could exercise the power of relaxation in respect of direct recruits only subject to the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 27.03.2012 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India.
The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order dated 24.11.2017 had been issued by the Government of Puducherry and that the UPSC had no role or authority in the matter of granting age relaxation. The Commission had merely conducted the recruitment process in accordance with the requisition made by the Government of PuducherryCentral Administrative Tribunal and the applicable recruitment rules. Therefore, according to him, the principal issues raised in the present O.A. concerned the Government of Puducherry and no relief could be sought against the UPSC. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
The learned counsel appearing for the Government of Puducherry submitted that the UPSC published the select list of 12 candidates on 06.10.2016, comprising five OBC candidates, three SC candidates, one ST candidate, one PH candidate and two candidates under the General category. Out of the 12 selected candidates, 11 were issued offers of appointment on 30.01.2017, while one candidate, namely, Thiru. Amirthnath S.B. (OBC), did not join duty. Subsequently, Dr. Narender Nagarwal (SC), who had joined on 03.03.2017, resigned and was relieved on 09.05.2017. Thereafter, on the request of the Government of Puducherry, the UPSC recommended two candidates from the reserve list, namely, Thiru. Varadharajan Udayachandran (OBC) and Thiru. Hemant Kumar Varun (SC), who joined duty.
He further submitted that Thiru. Krishna Murari Yadav (OBC), who had joined on 06.03.2017, subsequently resigned and was relieved on 16.10.2017. Further, Tmt. Shymol (SC), who had joined the post, died in aCentral Administrative Tribunal road accident on 02.10.2017. Against the resultant vacancies, the UPSC, on the request of the Government of Puducherry, recommended Tmt. Gurminder Kaur (General) and Ms. Shashi Prabha Joshi (SC), both of whom joined duty.
It was further submitted that Thiru. Thulasidass (OBC) and Tmt. Anita Yadav (OBC), who had joined on 13.03.2017 and 03.03.2017 respectively, subsequently resigned and were relieved on 27.02.2018. Against the resultant vacancies, the UPSC recommended Thiru. Deva Prasad (General) and Thiru. Praveen (OBC) from the reserve list; however, both candidates did not join duty. On a further request from the Government of Puducherry, the UPSC, by letter dated 07.08.2018, informed that no candidate belonging to the General or OBC category was available in the reserve list.
The learned counsel further submitted that the reserve panel could not thereafter be operated indefinitely. By letter dated 18.09.2019, the UPSC clarified that the reserve panel remained valid for two years from the date of finalisation of the Integrated Brochure/Reserve Panel, i.e., 27.09.2016, and that the request of the Government of Puducherry dated 09.09.2019, having been received beyond the said period, could not beCentral Administrative Tribunal accepted under the prevailing guidelines. The Government was accordingly advised to forward a fresh requisition if the vacancy was to be filled through direct recruitment.
Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the applicant had not been recommended by the UPSC for appointment and, having failed to secure a place in the select list, could not claim appointment to the post merely on the basis of the grant of age relaxation. He therefore submitted that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought and prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel on all sides perused the pleadings and the materials made available before the court. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the case laws referred to by the respective counsel.
Before we enter into the merits of the issue, we would like to extract the earlier orders passed by this Tribunal in the Original Applications filed by the applicant:
Central Administrative Tribunal“OA No.1186/2015, order dated 19.12.2016
7.Heard both. The applicant has passed M.L. during May 2001 and has completed Ph.D., during December 2012. She has come before this Court seeking relief of age relaxation to consider her application by UPSC. During the pendency of application, this Court had directed the respondents to provisionally accept the application without reference to the age limit. The learned counsel for the applicant would accordingly submit that the OA need not be considered if the other candidates had scored more than the applicant in which case the OA would become infructuous. Consequently, an Order to this effect was passed by this Tribunal on 24.10.2015 directing UPSC to declare the marks obtained by the applicant. Reply has been filed by UPSC and the Government of Puducherry. UPSC has mentioned that the upper age limit for this post is 38 years and admittedly, the applicant has completed 38 years and 29 days as on 27.08.2015. This Court passed an interim order on 26.08.2015. Thereafter, reply has been filed by UPSC on 28.10.2015. In terms of the directions given by this Court, it is stated that the applicant has secured lesser marks than the other candidates and she is in the reserve list and it appears that the result had been published in the website of the \ UPSC and the selection process is over. Reserved copies cannot be circulated to the applicants concerned. 8. As the applicant has not been selected and her claim would arise only in the event of the reserve list being operated in favour of a person below her in merit and as this contingency has not arisen at this juncture, it is premature and even unnecessary for the Court to pass any order. With these remarks, the original application is closed. MAs stand closed accordingly.
OA No.275/2017, Order dated 04.04.2017
9.The short point for consideration is whether age relaxation could be given for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of Law in the facts and circumstances of the case. From the reading of the reply from one stage to another stage filed by the respective parties, even though no Central Administrative Tribunalorder has been issued specifically for age relaxation, it is seen that the contention that the applicant was not selected for the post as she was overaged is not correct. The UPSC being the selecting authority and the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry being the age relaxing authority, the matter had been referred to the UPSC by the Under Secretary to Government, Higher & Technical Education stating that they had no objection to relaxing the age requirement in respect of the applicant subject to the concurrence by UPSC. The UPSC is of the view that age relaxation could not be given. In terms of the relevant rules, while UPSC has to be consulted, it is for the Lieutenant Governor to take a final decision. In the above said circumstances, we are of the view that the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry being the competent person to relax the age has to consider the fact that the applicant is in the waiting list and is otherwise a fully qualified candidate. She had been discharging the duties of Assistant Professor in Law from 2008 to 2015. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances and the educational qualification as also any objection raised by the UPSC, it is for the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry to decide the matter finally. We direct that this exercise be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 10. The OA is ordered accordingly. No costs.
ORDER
"The applicant's case for age relaxation was recommended by the Government of Puducherry with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor and the matter was taken up with the UPSC. However, the UPSC had not agreed with the proposal. As per the relevant rules, the authority competent to relax age requirement is the Lieutenant Governor and only consultation with UPSC is mandatory. As the final decision would still lie with the Lieutenant Governor, the respondents are directed to seek the decision of the Lieutenant Governor in the matter within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order."
The issues as to whether a candidate included in the reserve/waiting list has an enforceable right to appointment and whether a contractual employee is entitled to age relaxation in the recruitment process have been considered by various Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following decisions.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in W.P. No.6371 of 2023, by order dated 26.05.2023, considered the question of entitlement of contractual employees to age relaxation and held that contractual employees are not entitled to such relaxation. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
“10.It is settled that service law is rule based. The relationship between the employer and the employee in a public service and the terms and conditions governing such relationship are generally contained in statutory provisions or Rules. It is fundamental that in relation to law relating to public employment, almost every aspect thereof is governed mostly by statutory rules and unless there is a rule permitting relaxation of age etc., the same cannot be permitted. None of the applicable Rules above provide for any age relaxation in respect of this post for general candidates. Even the Recruitment Rules dated 8th August 2002 which provide for recruitment for the post of Assistant Commissioner, (Food)-cum Designated Officer, (Group A) framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in supersession of all the existing rules, orders or instructions issued earlier, as held by the Tribunal to be applicable to the case of the Petitioner, do not permit the relaxation of age limit beyond the period of 38 years. No case is, therefore, made out by the Petitioner to persuade us to take any other view. No interference, therefore, is called for in the order of the Tribunal.
11.The Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No costs.”
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering an appeal preferred by the Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (ECIL) against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, considered the issue of age relaxation in the recruitment process. The High Court had allowed the respondents’ writ appeal and directed ECIL to permit them to participate in the selection process for the post of Tradesman-B by extending the upper age limit to 40 years. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:
‘The respondents had filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking age relaxation under Notification No.38 of 2017, claiming they had worked with ECIL through an outsourcing agency since 2010 and had passed ITI and completed National Apprenticeship Certificate in ECIL itself. The notification prescribed an upper age limit of 28 years for unreserved candidates, with relaxation up to 40 years for those who worked or were working with ECIL as Senior Artisan/Junior Artisan with ITI qualification plus NAC or ITI qualification plus experience of tenure-based contract. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 04.01.2018, observing that the respondents approached the court at the last moment and the software did not accept applications without a code number for those who worked on tenure-based contract. The Division Bench, however, allowed the appeal on 08.03.2018, directing ECIL to permit the respondents to participate in the selection process scheduled for 11.03.2018. The Supreme Court, hearing ECIL's appeal, noted that the respondents were engaged through an outsourcing agency and thus did not fall within the category eligible for age relaxation. The Court also observed that the Division Bench did not consider the merits of the claim and passed directions after the application period had expired. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's judgment, and restored Central Administrative Tribunalthe Single Judge's order, holding that the respondents were not entitled to age relaxation.”
In the case of Union of India Vs Subit Kumar Das, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, (reported in 2025 INSC 1235), has held that available vacancies having been filled up and resulted in exhaustion of the wait list and the said process of recruitment had come to an end, therefore the wait list candidates cannot be accommodated. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
17.It appears that the High Court was much impressed by the fact that the statement made on 15.01.1999 on behalf of the appellants was not being honoured. It is true that a statement made before the Court has its solemnity and the party making such statement is bound to comply with the same. At the same time, it has to be seen as to whether such statement in the form of a concession, if given effect to would result in violation of any statutory rules or regulations. If such consequence is likely to flow, it would be open for the affected party on whose behalf concession in law was made to place before the Court the correct position of law and urge that it may not be compelled to give effect to an erroneous concession made on law. In the present case, giving effect to such statement made on 15.01.1999 would result in a waitlisted candidate being given an appointment notwithstanding the fact that all selected candidates in the said recruitment process had duly joined their posts and there was no occasion to operate the wait list. It would amount to filling in one post in the subsequent recruitment on the basis of an exercise carried out in the previous recruitment. This would definitely cause prejudice to the candidates seeking recruitment in the subsequent process as the vacancies would stand reduced. Moreover, it would also extend the life of the wait list though all vacancies stand filled in, which would be impermissible. In these facts therefore, we find that the appellants are justified in contending that the statement dated 15.01.1999 cannot be acted upon as it would result in conferring benefit on a waitlisted candidate to which he otherwise in law is not entitled to. The same is also not shown to be permissible under the Recruitment Rules. It appears that the High Court glossed over these vital aspects while directing the appellants to absorb the services of the respondent. The available vacancies having been filled up in 1997 resulted in exhaustion of the wait list and the said process of recruitment had Central Administrative Tribunalcome to an end. The High Court has, therefore, erred in directing the absorption of the respondent.
18.For all these reasons, the judgment of the High Court dated 25.06.2024 in WPCT No.24 of 2021 is found to be unsustainable in law. It is accordingly set-aside and the writ petition preferred by the respondent stands dismissed. The civil appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. “
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Vs Ati Jain & Others, reported in 2026 INSC 64 has observed that, “The line of judicial precedents noticed above suggest that even a candidate figuring in the select/merit list has no indefeasible right of appointment. Viewed from that stand point, we repeat, a candidate figuring in the waiting list cannot claim a better right than those who find place in the select/merit list. He/she, therefore, can claim only as much as the governing rules relating to recruitment enable or permit, more particularly when the life of a waiting/reserve list is limited.”
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in compliance with the direction of the Tribunal, produced the result of the applicant kept in a Sealed Cover. However, upon consideration of the matter, we find that no occasion arises for opening the Sealed Cover, since the applicant does not fulfil the requisite condition for grant of age relaxation. Furthermore, the applicant was only a wait-listed candidate and, as such, does not acquire any indefeasible or vested right to appointment merely by virtue of his inclusion in the waiting list. In the absence of fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility condition relating to age relaxation, the applicant cannot claim any right to appointment or seek opening of the Sealed Cover. Accordingly, the question of opening the Sealed Cover does not arise.
29 In the above circumstance, we find that the applicant has not made out a valid case for our interference to the impugned order dated 24.11.2017. In the result, the OA is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.