GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. VANDANA GUPTA AND ORS

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.: (Oral)

2. Present application has been filed seeking recall of the order dated CM APPL. 22319/2021 th May, 2021 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 4749/2021 to the extent liberty had been granted to petitioners to file Review Application before the Tribunal. The applicant also seeks dismissal of the said WP (C) NO. 4749/2021 with cost. 2021:DHC:2381-DB

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that applicant was respondent no.9 in WP (C) No. 4749/2021 who had filed OA before the Tribunal along with 53 other similarly placed persons seeking directions to grant age relaxation at par with similarly placed guest/ contractual teachers.

4. He points out that as neither Respondent no. 9 nor any other respondent was represented before this Court on 25th “9. Therefore, the submission of Ms. Ahlawat that the office memorandum dated 27.03.2012, in terms, states that it applies only to Central Government Civilian employees, is neither here nor there. The same is rejected.

10. These instructions/ office memorandum provide in Clause 12 that “Departmental Candidates with three years continuous service in Central Government” would enjoy “extent of age concession” “upto 40 years of age (45 years for SC/ST)” “for appointment to Group ‘C’ and erstwhile ‘D’ (now MTS posts) by direct recruitment which are in the same line or allied cadres)”. The post of PGT (English) Female is a Group „C ‟ post. May 2021, it could not be brought to the notice of this Court that the very basis to claim age relaxation before the CAT was that the contractual employee needs to be treated as departmental candidate and in that eventuality, he or she would be entitled for age relaxation for five years. He submits that the petitioners had not disclosed that the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’) while passing the impugned order had relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of DSSSB and Anr Vs Seema Kapoor, W.P.(C) No. 1738/2019, wherein it was held as under:

11. Moreover, as noticed hereinabove, the advertisement in question itself provides for age relaxation, inter alia, in relation to “Departmental candidates with at least 3 years continous service in GNCTD/ its legal or autonomous bodies”. It is not the submission of Ms. Ahlawat and it cannot be argued that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not a legal or autonomous body of the GNCTD. In respect of such departmental candidates, 5 years of age relaxation for Group B posts is permissible, which the post in question i.e PGT (English) Female is.

12. It is not even been contended that the said post is not in the same line or allied cadre, in which the respondent was serving when she made the application. She was serving as a Teacher (Primary) in SDMC. Thus, in any event, she was entitled to age relaxation in terms of the advertisement itself.”

5. Per contra, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the judgment of this Court in DSSSB and Anr Vs Seema Kapoor (supra) has been set aside by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.19968/2019 vide judgment and order dated 22nd

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that by way of impugned order dated 25 July, 2021. th

7. However, in the impugned judgement, this Court had not commented or taken a view with regard to the said plea of the petitioner. May, 2021, it had only permitted the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal raising the ground that Respondent no. 9 had availed age relaxation benefit in the requisition sent by the MCD.

8. It was clarified that Respondent no. 9/applicant herein would be at liberty to raise all the arguments before the CAT. In fact, in the impugned order, it was clarified that that this Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application proposed to be filed by the petitioners and all the rights and contentions of the parties with regard to said application were left open. The issue whether plea of the petitioners is based on falsehood is also a fact which had to be decided by the CAT after hearing all the parties.

9. In any event, as the judgment in DSSSB and Anr Vs Seema Kapoor (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant has been set aside by the Supreme Court and the Review Application filed by the petitioner has already been allowed by the CAT, we find no merit in the present application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J NAVIN CHAWLA, J AUGUST 6, 2021 TS