Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 04, 2023
MS KIRTI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.H.K.Chaturvedi, Ms.Anjali Chaturvedi, Mr.Sagar Chaturvedi, Ms.Meghna Chaturvedi and
Mr.Ramaditya Singh Jadon, Advocates
Through: Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No.62331/2023 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated September 20, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in OA No.1019/2019 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner herein by holding in paragraphs 7 to 10 as under:-
2. The claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal was with regard to an advertisement issued on December 20, 2017 inviting applications for various posts. The petitioner applied under the UR Category for the post of Domestic Science Teacher. The cut- off date for the same was January 31, 2018 and the prescribed age limit was 30 years. In view thereof, the petitioner was over aged by 07 years 9 months and 10 days on the cut-off date. The case of the petitioner before Tribunal was, by relying upon the OM dated November 01, 1980 issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to contend that she is entitled to 10 years of age relaxation. The Tribunal in paragraph 8 has held that it is guided by the judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Bala & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) No.7240/2017, decided on August 23, 2017.
3. The submission of Mr. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has erred in concluding so inasmuch as the OM dated November 01, 1980 grants age relaxation to the extent of 10 years to the women candidates. So Recruitment Rules on which much reliance has been placed by the respondents though contemplate 30 years as the maximum age limit with 05 years of age relaxation but Clause 6 of the Recruitment Rules which is reproduced as under (at page 173 of the paperbook) has to be construed to mean that since OM dated November 01, 1980 is with regard to relaxation of age limit for special categories of persons which include women, the benefit thereof could not have been denied:
of Clause 6 of the Recruitment Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India has not been considered in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others v. Sachin Gupta & Ors., W.P.(C) 1520/2012 decided on 07.08.2013 and Raj Bala & Anr.(supra).
4. We are unable to agree with the said submissions of Mr. Chaturvedi for the reason that Raj Bala & Anr.(supra) follows the judgment of this Court in the case of Sachin Gupta & Ors.(supra). Moreover, in paragraph 13 of the Raj Bala & Anr.(supra), this Court has clearly held that the OM dated November 01, 1980 is not applicable to the Government Schools run by the Directorate of Education. There is no dispute that the advertisement issued is for making appointments in the Schools run by the Directorate of Education. So it must follow the OM dated November 01, 1980 on which much reliance has been placed by Mr. Chaturvedi has no applicability to the Schools run by the Directorate of Education and hence the plea of Mr.Chaturvedi that the petitioner shall be entitled to relaxation of 10 years as per OM Dated November 01, 1980 cannot be accepted.
5. In view of the above, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the OA. We find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. DECEMBER 04, 2023