Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 9294/2014
SANJEEV YADAV Petitioner
Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Advocate
W.P.(C) 9294/2014
SANJEEV YADAV Petitioner
Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Advocate
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHIAND ORS. Respondents
Through Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel with Ms. Sana Ansari &
Ms. Vanessa Singh, Advocates
Through Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel with Ms. Sana Ansari &
Ms. Vanessa Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
29.04.2015 KAILASH GAMBHIR. J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. Nos. 21063/2014 rExemptions)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
29.04.2015 KAILASH GAMBHIR. J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. Nos. 21063/2014 rExemptions)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9294/2014 &CM APPL. Nos. 21062/2014
This Writ Petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') whereby
This Writ Petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') whereby
W.P.(C) 9294/2014 Page 1 of4 iT
2015:DHC:10939-DB V the learned Tribunal had disposed of the Original Application (in short
'OA ) No.3040/2014 preferred by the petitioner.
The grievance raised by the petitioner is that he has been denied the relaxation of 5 years being a departmental candidate and if this relaxation is given to him then he would be entitled to a total relaxation of
8 years to make him entitled to seek appointment to the post of Librarian in terms of the advertisement issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'DSSB ).
^ We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The DSSB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had issued an advertisement
No.02/2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to various posts in the Department under Govt. of NCT of Delhi, its autonomous bodies and Delhi Public Library.
The petitioner herein had applied for the post of Librarian against
^ the Post Code Nos. 69/2010 and 02/13 but his candidature was rejected by the respondents on the ground ofhis being overage. The age limit laid down for the said post was 32 years but the petitioner had crossed the age limit as on the cut off date laid down in the notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was a departmental candidate and therefore, in
2015:DHC:10939-DB V the learned Tribunal had disposed of the Original Application (in short
'OA ) No.3040/2014 preferred by the petitioner.
The grievance raised by the petitioner is that he has been denied the relaxation of 5 years being a departmental candidate and if this relaxation is given to him then he would be entitled to a total relaxation of
8 years to make him entitled to seek appointment to the post of Librarian in terms of the advertisement issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'DSSB ).
^ We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The DSSB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had issued an advertisement
No.02/2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to various posts in the Department under Govt. of NCT of Delhi, its autonomous bodies and Delhi Public Library.
The petitioner herein had applied for the post of Librarian against
^ the Post Code Nos. 69/2010 and 02/13 but his candidature was rejected by the respondents on the ground ofhis being overage. The age limit laid down for the said post was 32 years but the petitioner had crossed the age limit as on the cut off date laid down in the notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was a departmental candidate and therefore, in
W.P.(C) 9294/2014 addition to the relaxation of 3 years under the OBC category he was also entitled to a relaxation of 5 years as departmental candidate and therefore, in all, he was entitled to the relaxation of 8 years.
The learned Tribunal did not find any merit in the plea raised by the petitioner. The learned Tribunal took a view that even if he was given the age relaxation admissible either under OBC category or as a
Departmental candidate, he would still get a maximum relaxation upto the age limit of 35 years and since he had already crossed the age of 36
^ years, thereibre, he was ineligible to apply for the said post.
Onperusal of the advertisement notice, we do not find that theage relaxation under OBC category for a departmental candidate is over and above therelaxation of3 years available to him. The petitioner is thus not entitled to relaxation of 8 years as claimed by him. Even otherwise as per the Office Memorandum dated 27.03.2012, five years' relaxation was
^ available for posts which are in the same line or allied cadres and the petitioner herein was aLDC and was seeking appointment to the post of
Librarian, therefore, the post ofLibrarian cannot be treated to be in the same line or in the allied cadre and therefore, also the petitioner was not entitled torelaxation of5years as aDepartmental candidate.
The learned Tribunal did not find any merit in the plea raised by the petitioner. The learned Tribunal took a view that even if he was given the age relaxation admissible either under OBC category or as a
Departmental candidate, he would still get a maximum relaxation upto the age limit of 35 years and since he had already crossed the age of 36
^ years, thereibre, he was ineligible to apply for the said post.
Onperusal of the advertisement notice, we do not find that theage relaxation under OBC category for a departmental candidate is over and above therelaxation of3 years available to him. The petitioner is thus not entitled to relaxation of 8 years as claimed by him. Even otherwise as per the Office Memorandum dated 27.03.2012, five years' relaxation was
^ available for posts which are in the same line or allied cadres and the petitioner herein was aLDC and was seeking appointment to the post of
Librarian, therefore, the post ofLibrarian cannot be treated to be in the same line or in the allied cadre and therefore, also the petitioner was not entitled torelaxation of5years as aDepartmental candidate.
W.P.(C) 9294/2014 ^
There is no merit in the present Writ Petition and the same alongwith pending applications are hereby dismissed.
APRIL 29, 2015 V
There is no merit in the present Writ Petition and the same alongwith pending applications are hereby dismissed.
APRIL 29, 2015 V
W.P.(C) 9294/2014
(KAILASH GAMBHIR)
JUDGE
5.MEHTA)
JUDGE
Page 4 of4 r
(KAILASH GAMBHIR)
JUDGE
5.MEHTA)
JUDGE
Page 4 of4 r
JUDGMENT