Nitish Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 14 Mar 2023 · 2023:DHC:1840-DB

Suresh Kumar Kait; Neena Bansal Krishna

W.P.(C) 2977/2023

2023:DHC:1840-DB

administrative petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

Delhi High Court granted two years’ age relaxation as a one-time measure to candidates overaged due to Covid-19 related recruitment delays for the post of Sepoy Pharma in the Indian Army.

Full Text

Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001840

W.P.(C) 2977/2023
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: March 14, 2023

W.P.(C) 2977/2023 & CM APPL. 11625/2023 & CM APPL.
11626/2023 NITISH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ajay Garg, Ms. Tripti Gola, Ms. Lhingdeihat Chongloi &
Mr. Arvind Sardana, Advocates

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shivalakshmi, Central Government Standing Counsel, Ms. Ridhima Malhotra, Ms. Srishti Rawat & Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh
Rudy, Advocates with Major Partho Katyayan

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

JUDGMENT

(oral)

1. The respondent No.2, Indian Army, has notified an advertisement inviting online applications from male candidates for selection test for Soldier Technical, Nursing Assistant/ Nursing Assistant Veterinary and Sepoy Pharma intake for the recruitment year from 16.02.2023 till 15.03.2023 for the domicile of districts of Delhi State, Faridabad, Gurugram, Mewat (NUH) and Palwal District of Haryana State. 16:55

2. The petitioners before this Court are aspirants for recruitment to the post of Sepoy Pharma in different zones and claim to have the requisite qualification for the said post, however, are overaged to apply for this recruitment drive. The present petition has been preferred seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow upper age relaxation of three years to the petitioners in all the categories to enable them to apply to the post of Sepoy Pharma in the advertisement in question for different zones.

3. According to petitioners, the last drive to fill up the post of Sepoy Pharma was undertaken by the respondents in the year 2019 and appointments were made. Thereafter, an advertisement was notified on 01.02.2021 for the year 2020-21 for recruitment to the said post for different zones and many of the petitioners had applied for the same. However, thereafter an Addendum for cancellation of the recruitment process under the said advertisement was issued by the respondents. Thereafter, another advertisement dated 14.07.2021 was notified by the respondents, however, vide their notifications dated 26.08.2021 and 07.09.2021, the said recruitment process was postponed and thereafter, nothing was notified in respect of the advertisement dated 14.07.2021.

4. The petitioners claim that after a period of three years, the advertisement dated 16.02.2023 has been notified inviting applications to the post of Sepoy Pharma and the upper age limit prescribed for the said post is 19 to 25 years. The petitioners have averred that arbitrarily no recruitment drive has been conducted by the respondents and by now, petitioners have become over aged and turned ineligible to apply for the post of Sepoy Pharma. 16:55

5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid advertisement dated 16.02.2023, some of the petitioners claim to have made queries and representations on the online portal of respondent No.2, but the same have not been acceded to.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has submitted that the respondents have not posted the said vacancies on the National Career Portal despite various guidelines of the Department of Personnel and Training vide O.M. dated 13.06.2016; 23.06.2016; 02.11.2016 and 23.12.2016.

7. Also submitted that recruitment to the post of Sepoy Pharma in Indian Army was not made by the respondent in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 and had the recruitment process pursuant to advertisement dated 14.07.2021 was undertaken, the petitioners would have participated in the recruitment process.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that the respondents have provided two years of age relaxation on account of Covid-19 to the other posts in the Indian Army, such like Junior Commissioned Officer (Religious Teacher) RRT Courses 91 & 92, 2022- 23; Army Recruitment Rally for Soldier Technical Nursing Assistant & Nursing Assistant Veterinary 2022-23 and Agniveers in Agnipath Scheme.

9. Hence, on parity, a prayer is made to this Court to provide three years’ relaxation in age to the petitioners as One Time Measure for the post of Sepoy Pharma in Indian Army.

10. Notice issued. 16:55

11. Ms. Shivalakshmi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, accepts notice and submits that due to Covid -19 pandemic the recruitment drive in respect of advertisement dated 14.07.2021 had to be deferred from time to time and for the purpose of recruitment in respect of advertisement dated 16.02.2023, the current age of applicants has to be considered and the petitioners did not apply for other posts which were advertised in the year 2022, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record we find that the undisputed position is that the appointment to the post of Sepoy Pharma in Indian Army was last made in the year 2019 and thereafter, an advertisement dated 01.02.2021 for the year 2020-21 was notified, however, the same was cancelled by the respondents. Thereafter, another advertisement dated 14.07.2021 was also notified by the respondents but the said recruitment process was postponed vide notifications dated 26.08.2021 and 07.09.2021. But the fact remains that appointments to the post of Sepoy Pharma in Indian Army for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 have not been made and even the respondents have failed to post these vacancies on the National Career Services in a timely manner, as has been mandated by the DoPT vide Office Memorandums dated dated 13.06.2016; 23.06.2016; 02.11.2016 and 23.12.2016. The reason putforth by the respondents for not carrying out the recruitment process during the years 2020 till 2021 is due to Covid-19 pandemic.

13. In somewhat similar fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 2016 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 4452 of 2022) titled 16:55 as High Court of Delhi Vs. Devina Sharma, wherein petitioner had sought relaxation in upper age limit for appearing in Delhi Judicial Service Examination and Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination- 2022, on the plea that if High Court of Delhi had conducted examination in the year 2020 and 2021, such candidates would have been within the age limit in the said years, observed and held as under:-

“18. The time schedule for conducting the recruitment process to the judicial service has been stipulated by the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) vs Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission 6 . The object and purpose of the directions of this Court has been to ensure that the 6 (2008) 17 SCC 703 CA 2016/2022 10 recruitment process for the judicial service is conducted on schedule every year, subject to the rules of each High Court. The High Court of Delhi held its last examination for recruitment to DJS in 2019. Admittedly, no examination has been held in 2020 or in 2021. The examination for 2020 could not be conducted since the process for 2019 was still to be completed. The examination for 2020 could not be held due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this backdrop, since the examination was not conducted for two recruitment years, the High Court has after considering the issue stated before this Court through the learned senior counsel that as a one- time measure, this Court may accept the suggestion that candidates who would have qualified for the examinations were they to be held on schedule for recruitment years 2020 and 2021 in terms of the rules as they then stood, may be permitted to appear for the ensuing examinations.

16:55

11,015 characters total

19. Having regard to the fact that the recruitment examination for DJS has been last held in 2019 and two recruitment years have elapsed in the meantime, we are of the view that the suggestion of the High Court should be accepted for this year. The consequence of the acceptance of the suggestion by this Court, would be that candidates who would have fulfilled the upper age limit of 32 years, for the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 would be eligible to participate in the examination for the ensuing recruitment year

2022. The age bar which they would now encounter is not of their own volition. The real element of hardship faced by such candidates has been remedied by the CA 2016/2022 11 High Court and there is no reason for this court not to accept the suggestion. The examination cannot however, be postponed indefinitely nor can the candidates who have applied be left in a state of uncertainty. The existing candidates can have no grievance by the widening of the competition. In order to facilitate this exercise, we accept the suggestion of the High Court that the last date for the receipt of application forms shall be extended to 3 April 2022 and the examination shall be held on 24 April 2022. We direct that no impediment shall be caused in the conduct of the examination and no court shall issue any order of stay at variance with or contrary to the above directions of this Court. Xxxx

28. During the course of the hearing, this Court has been apprised of the fact that several applicants for the higher judicial service examination would have qualified in terms of the upper age limit of 45 years in 2020 or, as the case may be, 2021. As a matter of fact, Mr A D N Rao indicates that he has instructions to the effect that 16:55 some of those candidates may already have or would be in the process of moving petitions before the High Court. The CA 2016/2022 17 reasons which have weighed with this Court in allowing the High Court, as a one-time measure, to permit candidates for the DJS examination who had qualified in terms of the upper age limit of 32 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021, should on a parity of reasoning be extended to candidates for the DHJS examination who would have qualified in terms of the upper age limit of 45 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 during which no examinations could take place for the reasons which have been noticed earlier.”

14. This Bench while relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in High Court of Delhi Vs. Devina Sharma (Supra), in W.P.(C) No. 90/2023, titled as Sachin & Ors. Vs. Central Reserve Police Force, decided on 20.01.2023, has relaxed the upper age limit of candidates to appear in the examination for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) conducted by the CRPF after a lapse of approximately six years.

15. Having no difference of opinion than the one rendered earlier in Sachin (Supra) in the light of the fact that candidates, such like petitioners herein, who have been aspiring to join Indian Army on the post of Sepoy Pharma, but have not been able to pursue their dreams due to nonadvertisement of the vacancies and have turned over aged, in the interest of justice cannot be deprived to appear in the examination if they fulfill other eligibility criteria.

16. This Court is informed that the last date of applying for the post of 16:55 Sepoy Pharma is 15.03.2023. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to issue a Corrigendum on or before 15.03.2023 declaring relaxation of age of 02 years as a ‘one time measure’ and also extending the date of inviting applications for the post in question.

17. With directions, as aforesaid, the present petition and pending applications are accordingly disposed of.

18. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master to counsel representing both the sides.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE MARCH 14, 2023 r 16:55

Nitish Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation