Deepak Kumar vs Delhi Transco Ltd & Anr
2010 Latest Caselaw 3183 Del

*     HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Judgment delivered on: July 9th, 2010


+                  W.P.(C) 10535/2009

Deepak Kumar                                    ..... Petitioner
                   Through:Mr.Apurb Lal with Ms.Alka & Mr.Daleep
                           Singh, Advocates

                          -versus-


Delhi Transco Ltd & anr                ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr.Aman Sinha, Adv. for R-1
                           Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv. for R-2.


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL


1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
      see the judgment? Yes

2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes


Veena Birbal, J.

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, petitioner has prayed for the following directions:-

"(1) direct the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from overage category;

(2) declare the result of part-II papers of the petitioner for ends of justice and (3) pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

2. The facts leading to the filing of present petition are as under:-

The petitioner had passed matriculation examination in the year

1997. In May, 2002, he had passed senior secondary examination from

National Open School. In 2005, petitioner did Diploma in Electric

Engineering from Chhotu Ram Rural Institute of Technology, affiliated to

Board of Technical Education, Delhi. Respondent no.1 i.e Delhi Transco

Ltd requested respondent no.2 i.e Delhi Subordinate Services Selection

Board (in short referred to as `DSSSB') for selection of candidates for

various posts including the post of Assistant Electric Fitter to which the

petitioner had applied. Respondent no.2 i.e DSSSB advertised various

posts for appointment in respondent no.1 in Employment News dated

7/13th June, 2008 (Annexure P-3 Rozgar Samachar Page 16 of paper book).

Petitioner applied for the post of "Assistant Electric Fitter" wherein age

prescribed was 35 years as per advertisement. Petitioner submitted his

application on 7th July, 2008 along with all necessary documents and was

issued `Admit card'. On 8th March, 2009, petitioner appeared in the

examination conducted by respondent no.2 i.e DSSSB. In July, 2009,

complete merit of short listed candidates was displayed wherein the name

of the petitioner was at sr.no.60. It was shown as `overage'.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that petitioner has been wrongly

declared as `over age' and his result has been wrongly withheld by

respondent no.2. It is contended that as per advertisement, petitioner

was not overage. It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner's name may be

removed from `overage' category and result of Part II examination be

declared.

4. The respondent no.2 i.e DSSSB has filed counter affidavit opposing

the present petition. The stand of respondent no.2 is that two requisitions

for filling up 69 vacancies of Assistant Electric Fitter were sent by

respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 along with recruitment rules. The

same were advertised by respondent no.2 in leading newspapers of

English, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu as well as Employment News. The age

limit for the post of `Assistant Electric Fitter' was published as "Not

exceeding 25 years" which was as per requisitions send by the user

department i.e respondent no.1. However, there was relaxation in upper

age limit for SC, ST as well as OBC category which is not relevant for

disposal of the present writ petition as the petitioner has not applied in

that category. The stand of respondent no.2 is that inadvertently the

maximum age for recruitment has been published in some Hindi

newspaper as "not exceeding 35 years" instead of 25 years. The stand of

respondent no.2 is that in English newspaper, the age given for the post

of `Assistant Electric Fitter' was "not exceeding 25 years". Further, as per

recruitment rules of respondent no.1, the age given is `not exceeding 25

years' for general category. It is contended that as the petitioner was not

fulfilling the eligibility criteria as regards age is concerned, he has rightly

been not considered for the said post being ineligible. It is contended

that misprint of advertisement in the `Hindi Newspaper' does not entitle

the petitioner to take advantage of the same when there was clear

mention in advertisements in English and Hindi Newspapers that in case

of any discrepancy among the English, Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi versions of

the advertisement/information, the "English version" will be treated as

final.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner is relying upon the advertisement

given in the Hindi newspaper i.e Rozgar Samachar dated 7-13 June, 2008

wherein the age limit for the post of `Assistant Electric Fitter' Post Code-

006/08 is mentioned as `not exceeding 35 years'. Relaxation is there for

SC/ST/OBC category but same is not necessary as the petitioner had not

applied in that category.

The respondent no.2 is relying upon requisitions along with

Recruitment Rules sent by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 as well as

copies of advertisements annexed with counter affidavit. The relevant

requisition of respondent no.1 in this regard is placed on record (page 29

of the paper book)which is reproduced as under:-

"5. Age limits:

(a) As per Recruitment Rules Not exceeding 25 years

(b) Relaxation in upper age limit available to:

            (i)     SC                     by 5    years
            (ii)    ST                     by 5    years
            (iii)   OBC                    by 3    years
            (iv)    PH                     N.A
            (v)     PH & SC/ST             N.A
            (vi)    PH & OBC               N.A
            (vii)   Government servant &
                    Departmental candidates         N.A

            (viii) Are the age limits               N.A
                   Relaxable for Women/
                   Widows

The advertisement appearing in English Newspaper "The Hindu"

dated 13th May, 2008 clearly mentions the age limit for the aforesaid post

as "not exceeding 25 years". Further clause (8) of NOTE appearing in the

aforesaid advertisement clearly mentions as under:-

"In case of any discrepancy among the English, Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi versions of the advertisement/information, the English version will be treated as final."

Even the Hindi Newspaper "Amar Ujala" dated 13th May, 2008 also

gives the similar note as is mentioned above.

Clause 10 of the advertisement (page 47 of the paper book) is also

relevant which is as under:-

"(10) CANCELLATION OF CANDIDATURE

(i) The candidates applying for the posts should ensure that they fulfil all the eligibility conditions. Merely because a candidate has been allowed to appear at the examination it will not be considered as a valid ground for his/her being eligible for the selection. If on verification at any time or after the written examination or at any stage of recruitment process, if it found that they do not fulfil any of the eligibility conditions, his/her candidature for the post applied for, will be cancelled by the Board/Appointing Authority."

7. In view of above discussion, it may be seen that as per

Recruitment Rules of respondent no.1, the age limit for the post of

`Assistant Electric Fitter' is "not exceeding 25 years". In the

advertisement for filling up the vacancies for the aforesaid post, in Hindi

Newspaper, maximum age limit has been published as `not exceeding 35

years' whereas in English Newspaper as noted above, it has been

published as per recruitment rules of respondent no.1 i.e "not exceeding

25 years". There was a discrepancy of age in Hindi Newspaper as the

same was published contrary to Recruitment Rules of respondent no.1.

The "Note-clause 8 appearing in the advertisement to the effect that "In

case of any discrepancy among the English, Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi

versions of the advertisement/information, the English version will be

treated as final" clarifies the position i.e maximum age of recruitment for

the aforesaid post is 25 years. The above note is there in both the

newspapers i.e Hindi as well as English (page 49 & 51 of the paper book).

The petitioner did not deliberately annexe the complete advertisement

with the petition so as to hide the true facts. The same amounts to

concealment of material facts. The petitioner is admittedly of 28 years of

age when he applied for the said post i.e he was not fulfilling the eligibility

criteria. There is also a clear mention in the advertisement that if a

candidate does not fulfil any of the eligibility conditions, his/her

candidature for the post applied for, will be cancelled by the respondent.

The petitioner has been rightly declared overage. No illegality is done by

the respondent no.2 in declaring him `overage' as he does not fulfil the

eligibility criteria. In any event grant of relief under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is a discretionary relief. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, present is not a fit case for exercise of such a

discretion in favour of petitioner.

I find no merit in the petition and dismiss the same. There shall be

no order as to costs.

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

th July 9 , 2010 ssb