AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Terdal, J
Heard Shri B.K.Berera, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anuj Sharma, counsel for the respondents.
The crucial issue involved in this case is regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for age relaxation of 5 years as departmental candidate.
The petitioner had applied for the post of Librarian (Post Code No. 69/10) as per the advertisement number 002/2010 of the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB). In OA No. 3580/2010 filed by the applicant, this Tribunal passed an order on the basis of earlier orders of this Tribunal directing the respondents to examine the case of the applicant and to extend the same benefit and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. The operative portion of the same is as under:-
"4. Accordingly, we dispose of this OA with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant herein in the light of the aforesaid judgment and in case he is found to be similarly placed the he be extended the same benefits as were granted to the applicants of the above mentioned OAs. In any case decision may be taken by the respondents within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and communicated to the applicant by means of a reasoned and speaking order. No costs."
This Contempt Petition has been filed on the alleged non-compliance of the said order.
The respondents have filed reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, they have annexed the rejection notice no.F.4(401)/DSSSB/CC-1/2015/2191-97 dated 09.11.2017. In the rejection notice, they have clearly stated that the applicant was working as Library Attendant and the user department have cancelled his candidature and returned the dossier. They have stated in so far as the age relaxation is concerned, it is for the user department who on the basis of the Recruitment Rules (RRS) decide about the age relaxation. In the affidavit in para 4 of their reply they have stated that as per the advertisement, the age relaxation of 5 years is available to the departmental candidates, where a "relationship could be establish that the service already rendered in a particular post will be useful for the efficient discharge of the duties of post for which recruitment is to be made". In the present case, it is the post of Librarian for which recruitment is made and the petitioner is only a Library Attendant and as such it cannot be considered as "in the same line or the allied cadre".
In view of the affidavit filed by the respondents, we are of the opinion that no contempt is made out. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is dismissed and notices issued to respondents stand discharged.