Savita K. Umari v. Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. S.K. Hospital and Ors.

1. The petitioner is aggrievetf 10.04.2019 rendered in O.A.No.4320/2013 bythe Cytrai-Ad'm Tribunal('Tribunal') and the order dated 16.07.2019 passed in a review application being R.A.No.122/2019 filed by the petitioner.

2. With the consent of c6uh^l|;^&r th||j^ the writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

3. Some necessary facts required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that pursuant to an advertisement, which was released by respondentNo.l,inviting applications for the post ofLab Technician in the year 2007,the petitioner made an application, which was rejected onthe ground ofpetitioner being over-age. W.P.(C)10645/2019 p^ge7of[4] 2019:DHC:7479-DB \x

4. Mr. Vishwendra Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the advertisement,the upper age limit was fixed at 28 years..However,being an OBC candidate,the petitioner was entitled to further relaxation of[3] years, which is not in dispute. Accordingly, the petitioner had contended before the Tribunal thatshe was within the age limit as prescribed by the advertisement. Reliance is placed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on a decision rendered in Shankar K. Mandal and others Vs. State ofBihar and others, AIR 2003SC4043,wherein the Supreme CourtofIndia has observed thatin case no cut-offdate is fixed then theput-offdate would be the last date ofsubmitting the application form.-

5. Mr. Verma has also raised,ah:;additional plea before us that the petitioner would be entitled to another[5] ybars ofage-relaxation being a government servant. I ^

6. Ms.Aakanksha Kaul,learned couhsef appearing for respondents No.l and 2submits thatthere is no infirmity,illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Tribunal,.;;^ h would require interference in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel contends that the prescribed age limitfor amfUnreserved"candidate is 28 years and the petitioner was given benefit of age relaxation of 3 years, being an OBC candidate. Despite the age relaxation, it was found that the petitioner was over age by 11 months;and accordingly, the O.A was dismissed. Ms.Kaul further submits thatno other ground was urged before the Tribunal. Ms.Kaul also submits that as far as the plea raised with respect to the petitioner being a governmentservantis. concerned, neither any ground was urged in the O.A. nor any i ) Page2of[4] submission was made at the time of hearing of the O.A. Ms. Kaul further submits that even otherwise,this ground is not available to the petitioner as the petitioner is only working as a contractual employee; and thus cannotseek benefitofbeing agovernmentservant.

7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

8. In the afore-going paragraph, we have noticed some undisputed facts. The date ofbirth ofthe petitioner is 13.02.1976. Itis notin dispute that being an OBC candidate,the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation of three years. Despite the benefit of age relaxation, the petitioner is admittedly over-age by 11 months. In the case ofShankar K.Mandal {supra),the Supreme CourtofIndia held as under: "(1) The cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be /satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the ■tidte;'appointed by the relevant service rules. (2)If there is nqfcut-off date'apppinted by the rules then such date shall % as,appointed,'for the purpose in the advertisement callingfor apj^feahons. (3)If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall bp fapplie^.b5|-re to the last date appointed by which the•applications were to be received by the competentauthority."

9. Applying the law laid down to the facts ofthe present case,no benefit, other than the 3 years' age relaxation for OBC category, would accrue in favour ofthe petitioner.

10. Moreover, admittedly, as far as the second ground urged before us, namely thatthe petitioner is agovernmentservantis concerned,nosuch Page3of[4] la ground was raised by the petitioner in the O.A; and accordingly, such plea of the petitioner cannot be considered. However, Mr. Verma submits that the petitioner had raised this ground in the review petition. This submission of Mr. Verma cannot be entertained as once the O.A. was decided, the Tribunal correctly rejected the review petition as the ground was not raised in the O.A. itself. However,that apart, being a contractual employee, the petitioner cannot take benefit of being a government servant.

11. We accordingly find no merit in the present writ petition. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. -. CM APPL.43959/2019 ^

12. In view of the order passed iri thej^jKjjetition, the applieation also stands dismissed. ' i: OCTOBER 11,2019 ck ' i'i '' i' ^ I ■...".v V. i" iv'." 'K G.S.SISTANI,J ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI,J. I. T"': r I u"',i fV.P.(C)10645/2019 Page4of[4]