AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicants are the employees of the first respondent -Authority. Advertisement No.01/19 was issued by the first respondent inviting applications for various posts, including that of Senior Law Officer (SLO) (3 vacancies). The age limit for a candidate was prescribed as 35 years. The applicants contend that in the Recruitment Rules of the year 1998 framed by the first respondent, the age limit for this post was stipulated as 40 years, and in 2010, when steps were initiated for filling up the post of SLO, the first respondent issued circular dated 22.04.2010, relaxing the age limit of employees of the first respondent-authority by 10 years and thereby the age limit for such candidates became 50 years. They submit that the Recruitment Rules were amended in the year 2015, reducing the age limit to 35 years and though several O.As., wherein the amendments in Recruitment Rules were challenged, are pending, the impugned Advertisement has been issued stipulating the age limit as 35 years. They submit that such a stipulation is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) vide O.M. dated 31.12.2010.
In this O.A., the applicants challenge the Advertisement as being illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires, and seek a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh Advertisement stipulating the age limit, in consonance with the Recruitment Rules of the year 2008.
We heard Mr. Jainendra Maldahiyar, learned counsel for applicants at length, at the stage of admission itself.
The post of SLO is part of establishment of the first respondent. The service conditions of the Law Officers of different categories were governed by the Recruitment Rules of 1998. The maximum age limit for the post of SLO was stipulated as 40 years. However, the Recruitment Rules were amended in the year 2015 and one of the amendments was in the form of reduction of age limit to 35 years. In this O.A., the applicants did not challenge the amendment at all. They seek to rely upon the challenge made to the amendments in other O.As.
Once the first respondent has amended the Recruitment Rules stipulating the age limit for the post in question as 35 years, there is no way that the Advertisement could have been in a different form. The applicants are not able to demonstrate as to how the stipulation of such age limit is contrary to law. It is always the prerogative of an employer to prescribe the conditions of service.
The guidelines issued by the DoPT vide O.M. dated 31.12.2010 are purely directory, if not advisory in nature and not mandatory at all. The relevant clause of the O.M. reads:-
"3.7.4.1 The upper age limits for different posts depend upon the nature of duties, educational qualifications and experience requirements. Broadly, the following criteria may be followed."
Hardly there exists any element of compulsion in it. Further, the O.M. is in respect of the services in the Central Government.
Reliance by the applicants upon the circular issued in the year 2010, granting relaxation of age limit in favour of the employees of DDA, is rather misplaced. Firstly, the selection of the year 2010 did not materialize and the provisions of law, at the relevant point of time, were totally different. Secondly, the relaxation of age limit would depend upon the existence of a Rule empowering such exercise, and a situation warranting the same. No employee can claim relaxation of age limit, as of right.
The applicants have also placed reliance upon the judgment of High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (S) No.7526/2013 decided on 20.12.2013. That was a case in which the relief was granted on the facts of the case and no principle of law as such was enunciated therein.
We do not find any merit in this O.A. It is accordingly dismissed.
All ancillary M.As. shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.