GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. ASHWANI KUMAR SOLANKI; GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SATYAJEET KUMAR SINGH

1. These writ petitions assail a common judgment dated 1 July 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 1151/2024[1] and OA 1595/2024[2].

2. The facts in the two cases are identical. The Tribunal has also disposed of the OAs by a common judgment, under challenge before us.

3. The respondents in both these cases worked as Assistant Public Prosecutors[3] on contractual basis with the Directorate of Prosecution, Home Department, GNCTD. They applied in response to Advertisement 02/2021 dated 22 January 2021, issued by the Union Public Service Commission[4], for recruitment to 80 posts of APP. They sought age relaxation in terms of Office Memorandum[5] dated 11 June 2019 issued by the service department of the GNCTD.

4. In an earlier round of litigation, this Court, in WP (C) 9378/2021 and other connected cases, passed judgment dated 2 November 2023, directing the UPSC to grant age relaxation to the respondents as a one-time measure in terms of OM dated 11 June

2019.

5. The entitlement of the appellants to age relaxation is the issue in Ashwani Kumar Solanki v. GNCTD Satyajeet Kumar Singh v. GNCTD & Anr. “APPs” hereinafter “UPSC” hereinafter “OM” hereinafter controversy.

6. Para 2(ii) of the OM dated 11 June 2019 reads thus: “2(II) The contractual employees working against all other administrative posts, will be eligible for one time relaxation in upper age limit upto maximum period of 5 years. The quantum of age relaxation will be subject to number of years spent in the department on contract basis provided, they have worked for at least 180 days in a particular year.”

7. The dispute, before the Tribunal as well as before this Court, turns on the interpretation of the expression “in a particular year” as employed in the afore-extracted sub-para 2(II) of the OM.

8. On the ground that the respondents did not have, to their credit, 180 days service in any calendar year spanning January to December, the GNCTD rejected the candidature of the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the Tribunal by way of OAs, in which the judgment under challenge has come to be rendered.

9. The Tribunal faulted the GNCTD for having interpreted the word “particular year” as “calendar year”. In the absence of any specific stipulation that the service of 180 days was required to be rendered in a calendar year, the Tribunal held that the GNCTD was not justified in according such an interpretation to the clause in question.

10. The reasoning of the Tribunal, in this regard, as contained in para 28, 30 and 31 of the impugned judgment, merit reproduction thus:

11. Accordingly, the Tribunal has directed the GNCTD to reconsider and respondents’ eligibility to age relaxation by interpretation the words “particular year” as “financial year”.

12. Aggrieved thereby, the GNCTD has filed the present writ petition.

13. We have heard Mr. N.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner at length.