AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Thakur, J.—Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board has invited applications for the post of Librarian in Directorate of Education
carrying a pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000/- and a similar post in the Directorate of Training and Technical Education carrying a pay scale of Rs.
5000-150-8000/-. The notification issued by the Selection Board, in this regard, stipulates that the age of the candidates for the post of Librarian
in the Directorate of Education should not be more than 30 years whereas for the post of Librarian in Directorate of Training and Technical
Education, the upper age limit is fixed at 35 years. The notification makes it clear that the age limits in either case are relaxable in accordance with
the instructions/orders issued by the Central Government. The petitioner Society is aggrieved of the said notification and has filed the present
petition in purported public interest. The petition prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to have one simple criterion in the Recruitment
Rules prescribing a common recruitment age for the candidates. A further direction to the respondents to extend the last date for submission of the
application by another 15 days has also been prayed for.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The notification referred to by the petitioner specifies the requirement of
age differently for the posts advertised by the same. What is, however, significant is that the experience required for the appointment against both
the posts is also different and so is the pay scale. The Recruitment Rules regulating the appointments against the two posts which are in two
different departments are also bound to be different. Just because two different sets of Rules prescribe different age limits for purposes of
recruitment, does not, in our opinion, constitute hostile discrimination or cause any prejudice to either the Society or its members seeking
employment. So also the question whether or not a particular candidate is entitled to the concession of age relaxation is a matter that can be more
appropriately examined in a petition filed by the candidate himself. There is no question of the petitioner espousing the cause of the affected
candidate in public interest.
There is no merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 5000/-, which shall be deposited in the Delhi
High Court Advocates Welfare Fund.