Delhi High Court
Suresh Kumar vs Director Of Education & Ors. on 8 September, 2009
Author: Sunil Gaur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: September 02, 2009
Judgment delivered on: September 08, 2009
+ W.P. (C) No. 8938/2005
Suresh Kumar ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A. Asthana, Advocate.
Versus
Director of Education & Ors. ... Respondents
Through: Ms. Aakanksha Munjhal for
Ms.Geeta Luthra, Advocate for
Department of Education
Mr. A.K. Mishra and Mr. Rajneesh
Chaudhary, Advocates for
Respondent No. 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest?
SUNIL GAUR, J.
*
1. On 22nd November, 2003, Petitioner had joined the
Respondent - School on the post of Waterman, which was
unreserved. The Appointment Letter (Annexure-A) clearly
states that the post of Waterman, on which the Petitioner
was appointed, was unreserved one.
W.P. (C) No. 8938/2005 Page 1
2. On 31st March, 2004, Petitioner was relieved of his
duty as Waterman by the Respondent - School vide letter
(Annexure-F), which is impugned in this petition. The
reason given in the letter (Annexure-F) is that Petitioner
has not been granted age relaxation by the Director of
Education.
3. Before issuing the impugned letter (Annexure-F),
Respondent - School had issued letter (Annexure-D) to the
Petitioner on 7th January, 2004 stating that his
appointment is subject to the approval by the Director of
Education. In the letter (Annexure-D), it has been stated
that at the time of selection to the post of Waterman,
Petitioner was aged 28 years and 3 months and the age
limit for the post in question which is unreserved, is 18 to
25 years.
4. Petitioner relies upon an extract from 'Swamy's
Compilation', dealing with reservation and concessions in
appointment for the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe,
(Annexure-E) to press for age relaxation. Petitioner has
also placed on record an extract from 'Dixit's School
Manual' to highlight the Recruitment Rules for the post of
W.P. (C) No. 8938/2005 Page 2
Class IV employees, which gives the age limit as 28 years
and it is said to be relaxable in case of SC/ST.
5. In June, 2004, Petitioner had made Representations
(Annexure-H, Annexure-I and Annexure-J) for claiming age
relaxation and had relied upon Caste Certificate
(Annexure-K). Reliance has been also placed by the
Petitioner upon an unreported decision of another Bench
of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5805/2003, titled 'Tazeem
Ahmed Usmani vs. Director of Education & Ors.', decided
on May 28th, 2004, wherein the relief of reinstatement was
granted while holding that the no approval from Director
of Education is required. The relief sought herein is also of
reinstatement in service.
6. The Director of Education, Respondent No. 1 and 2, in
their counter affidavit have stated that the post of
Waterman in the Respondent - School was a single
unreserved post and no reservation to appointment on a
single unreserved post can be claimed. Therefore, age
relaxation could not have been granted. Respondent No. 3
and 4 in their counter affidavit have stated that
consequent upon disapproval of the appointment of the
Petitioner by the Director of Education, they had no choice
W.P. (C) No. 8938/2005 Page 3
except to relieve the Petitioner from service. Respondent
No. 5 is the candidate of general category, who has been
selected to the unreserved single post of Waterman in the
Respondent - School and he in his counter affidavit has
supported the impugned order and the stand taken by
Respondent No. 1 and 2. In the rejoinder filed by the
Petitioner, the averments made in the writ petition have
been reiterated.
7. After having heard counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material on record, it emerges that the post
of Waterman in question is an unreserved post. In view
thereof, Petitioner's claim for age relaxation of five years
based upon reservations/concessions in appointments
cannot be acceded to. Although, in the impugned
communication (Annexure-D), it has been stated that the
age limit for the unreserved post is 18 - 25 years but as
per extract of Recruitment Rules for the post of Class IV
employees (Annexure-A) filed with the rejoinder, the upper
age limit for direct recruits is 28 years. Even if it is taken
that the upper age limit for the post in question is 28
years, still the Petitioner is over age by three months, as
per communication (Annexure-D). This is not disputed by
the Petitioner. In fact, age relaxation is claimed as the
W.P. (C) No. 8938/2005 Page 4
Petitioner claims to be a schedule caste. As already noted
above, the post in question is unreserved one. Though
Petitioner relies upon an unreported decision of this Court
in W.P. (C) No. 5805/2003, rendered on May 28, 2004, but
upon perusal of the same, I find that it is of no assistance
to the case of the Petitioner as it pertained to a Minority
Institution and appointments made in the said Minority
School did not need the approval of the Director of
Education. Here in this case, the approval of the Director
of Education is required and the Petitioner's appointment
to the post of Waterman has been disapproved by Director
of Education vide impugned communication. It is not the
case of the Petitioner that on an unreserved post, there is
any age relaxation for the general candidates.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this petition lacks substance.
No case for reinstating the Petitioner on the post of
Waterman in question is made out.
9. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. No costs.
SUNIL GAUR, J.
September 08, 2009
pkb
W.P. (C) No. 8938/2005 Page 5
