GNCT OF DELHI v. ARUN RAWAT

1. The narrow question which the petitioner i.e., the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSB) urges, in these proceedings challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench in OA No. 3193/09, is whether the respondent-applicant was eligible to apply and secure appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil). It is urged by DSSB that the applicant had exceeded the age limits prescribed.

2. Briefly the facts are that the applicant was selected as an LDC through the Staff Selection Commission in the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, which he joined on 09.06.2003. He continued in that position till 24.02.2005. He was selected as an LDC in the Ministry of Defence which he joined on the later date i.e., 25.02.2005. He continued with the Central Government till 30.03.2007. In the interregnum, he had 2014:DHC:7239-DB W.P.(C)2208-11 Page 2 applied to the post of JE (Works) in the Railways and also with the Uttaranchal Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam (in short ‘UPN’) and was selected. He was selected and worked with the Western Railways for the period 03.04.2007 to 21.10.2007. He later was appointed in the UPN, as Junior Engineer (Civil) on 03.10.2007. In this background, he applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the MCD in July, 2008. At that time he was 30 years and the norms which prescribe the age limit mandated that the candidate ought to be 27 years, but, in exceptions as in the case of serving government servants and employees of Municipal Corporation, 5 years relaxation was permissible. The said rule notified in the advertisement reads as under:- “(3)JUNIOR ENGINEER(CIVIL)

IN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI.

POST CODE – 018/08 Number of Vacancies: 268 (UR-118, OBC-86, SC-42, ST-22 (including 06 vacancies reserved for PH and 01 for Ex.Servicemen) Essential Qualifications: (a) Degree in Civil Engineering from a recognized University or equivalent. OR (b)(i) Diploma in Civil Engineering from a recognized institution or equivalent; and (ii) 2 years professional experience as Civil Engineer, counted from the date of completion of the qualifying diploma examination. Pay Scale: 5000-8000/-; Group – „C‟; Probation Period; Two years; Age Limit: Not exceeding 27 years (Relaxable for SC/ST-5 years, OBC-3 years, PH-10 years, PH & SC/ST-15 years, PH & OBC-13 years & Relaxable for Govt. servants and employees of Municipal corporation of Delhi upto 5 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Govt.) (R.NO.A.O. (Estt.)-II/CED-II/2008/4343, DATED: 26.02.2008)” (emphasis added)

3. The applicant was selected but was not formally appointed, and W.P.(C)2208-11 Page 3 therefore approached the CAT, which, after considering the materials on record and after interpreting the rules, held that the respondent-applicant was eligible, and directed that he will be given appointment.

4. DSSB argues that the impugned order of the CAT is flawed. It is highlighted that the employee i.e., the applicant never joined the Ministry of Defence and actually worked for 6-7 months with Railways and, therefore, all the while, maintained a lien with Ministry of Defence, where he did not in fact work. Counsel also emphasised that the applicant in fact worked with the UPN, and in these circumstances the maintenance of lien could not be construed as ‘employment’ or service with the Government or of its department, so as to qualify for the age relaxation exception. The CAT in its impugned order reasoned as follows:-

5. Undeniably, the respondent at the time of his selection was about 30 years and 11 days. It is a matter of record that, for a considerable period, he worked with the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and was later selected by the Central Government, Ministry of Defence. As to whether he actually served the latter Ministry or the Western Railways or merely maintained the lien and whether the maintenance of his lien can be construed as employment is not an enquiry that the DSSB, in the opinion of this Court, ought to have engaged itself with. The rules pertaining to maintenance of lien, to enable a public employee to work in another organisation, have been prescribed. It is open for the public employer to deploy him or her on deputation basis or create some other temporary arrangement, because possibly even the public employee may chose to join some other organisation with the objective of permanent absorption, but later decide to revert back to his or her parent organisation. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant was not a government employee, thus disentitled to the age relaxation norms in the exception carved out by the relevant eligibility condition. We also note that this is not the stand of the MCD or the Government of NCT Delhi or even the Union Government. In these circumstances, the impugned order of the W.P.(C)2208-11 Page 5 CAT is hereby affirmed. The writ petition is dismissed.

6. The respondent no.2 i.e., MCD is hereby directed to ensure that the appointment letter of the applicant is issued and he is permitted to report for duties within four weeks from today in compliance with the impugned order of the CAT. All consequential benefits including seniority, notional fixation in the pay, annual grant of increments also have to follow and separate orders be passed within the same period. The applicant will however not be entitled to arrears. Order dasti.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

VIPIN SANGHI (JUDGE) DECEMBER 18, 2014 mb