Parvinder Kumar vs Dsssb & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1512 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C.) No. 1846/2010

%                  Date of Decision: 18th MARCH, 2010


#     PARVINDER KUMAR
                                                             .....PETITIONER

!                  Through:   Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate.

                                   VERSUS

$     DSSSB & ANR.
                                                         .....RESPONDENTS

^                  Through:   Mr. Anjum Javed for the respondent
                              No. 1/DSSSB.
                              Ms. Latika Choudhary for counsel for the
                              respondent No. 2/SCERT.


CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper 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 the Digest? YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) had issued

an advertisement on 26.12.2009 inviting applications from eligible

candidates for filling up of 4,500 vacant posts of Teachers in MCD and in

schools under Government of NCT of Delhi. One of the terms of eligibility

to apply for the post was regarding age limit of the candidates which was

between 20-27 years relaxable in case of reserved category candidates.

The petitioner was overage on the date of advertisement for his

appointment to the post of Teacher advertised by respondent No. 1 on

26.12.2009. He has filed this writ petition seeking directions against the

respondents that he should be allowed to participate in the Primary

Teacher examination by granting age relaxation to him.

2 The case of the petitioner is that he had taken admission in Two-

year Elementary Teachers Education Training Course (in short ETE

course) run by State Council of Education Research & Training

(respondent No. 2 herein) in 2006-08 batch. At the time of his admission,

the age limit for taking admission by the candidates in ETE course was

between 17-30 years relaxable by 5 years in case of reserved category

candidates. At the time the petitioner had taken admission in ETE course

in 2006-08 batch, in terms of recruitment rules for appointment to the

post of Teachers in schools under MCD and under Government of NCT of

Delhi, the age limit for eligibility was between 19-32 years in case of

males and 19-42 years for females. The recruitment rules for the post of

Teachers were amended by the MCD and also by Government of NCT of

Delhi whereby the age limit for Teachers was reduced uniformly to 20-27

years. The candidates who had passed out the ETE course in 2006-08

batch had challenged the amendment of recruitment rules whereby the

age limit was reduced to 20-27 years in a batch of writ petition decided

by the Division Bench of this Court in case titled as Sachin Gupta &

Others Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board through its

Chairman & Others, reported as 152 (2008) DLT 378 (DB). In that case,

the Division Bench, as one time measure, gave age relaxation to all those

candidates who had passed out ETE course in 2006-08 batch and

permitted them to participate in the selection process held for

recruitment of Teachers at that time making it clear that the relaxation

so granted by the Court would cease to operate for the ETE courses after

2008, that is, commencing from 2009. Para 59 of the said judgment of

the Division Bench is relevant and is extracted below:-

"59. However, considering that the maximum age prescribed for the post of Assistant Teachers (Primary) for the MCD and NCT has been reduced from 32 years for males and 42 years for females to 27 years, we are of the view that this would cause hardship to candidat3es already enrolled in the ETE course, who might suddenly find themselves over-age and ineligible. With a view to ameliorate this hardship and as a one-time measure, following the ratio in the case of Anuj Johri v. Union of India and Ors. Reported in 2005 III AD (DELHI) 614;, it is directed that the respondents would permit all those candidates who have completed the ETE course either in the year 2006 or 2007 or 2008 to appear in the examination conducted by the Respondents for the posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) once each of the Respondents i.e. MCD and Govt. of NCT of Delhi provided they do not exceed the upper age limit of 32 years for males and 42 years for females and also fulfill all other eligibility conditions. This would also apply to candidates, who have already taken the examination as permitted by this Court. This relaxation will be independent of the relaxation applicable to reserved categories. However, the Relaxation granted by this Court shall cease to operate for the ETE courses after 2008 i.e. Commencing from 2009 as from 30th September, 2007 the maximum age limit for ETE course has been reduced from 30 years to 24 years. "

(Emphasis added)

3 In the present case, though the petitioner had taken admission in

ETE Course in 2006-08 batch but he could not pass out the said ETE

Course in 2006-08 batch. He admittedly passed the ETE Course in 2007-

09 batch. In the prospectus issued by the respondent No. 2 for admission

of candidates in 2007-09 batch of candidates, the following clause

regarding age limit was inserted:

"2. Age limit

(a) X X X X

(b) X X X X

(c) X X X X

(d) At present the Recruitment Rule for appointment as Asstt. Teacher/Primary Teacher in Delhi schools stipulate 27 year as the maximum age. SCERT does not take any responsibility for any person who completes the said course late, and therefore becomes ineligible for appointment as peer RRs. "

4 A reference to the above clause would show that the petitioner was

put to a notice by respondent No. 2 that as per prevalent recruitment

rules for appointment as Assistant Teacher/Primary Teacher in Delhi

schools, the maximum age limit is 27 years and the State Council of

Education Research & Training will not be responsible in case any person

completing the said ETE Course is ineligible for appointment on account

of overage as per recruitment rules.

5 Mr. Jagdev Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, contends that the stipulation regarding age limit contained in

the prospectus issued for the candidates who took admission in 2007-09

batch is not applicable to the petitioner as, according to him, the

petitioner took admission in 2006-08 batch in which there was no said

condition of age limit. This argument is wholly devoid of any merit. It is

not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

that the petitioner had passed ETE Course in 2007-09 batch and,

therefore, the condition regarding age limit mentioned in the prospectus

for 2007-09 batch is binding on petitioner also.

6 The Division Bench of this Court in Sachin Gupta's case has

categorically held that the benefit of age relaxation granted in that case

will cease to operate for the ETE Courses after 2008, that is, commencing

from 2009. The benefit of age relaxation in that case was given by the

Division Bench of this Court as one time measure and was specifically

order not to extend the said benefit to candidates who may do ETE

Course after 2008. The directions given by the Division Bench in Sachin

Gupta's case are binding on this Court. In that view of the matter, the

petitioner is not entitled for any age relaxation as he admittedly was

overage on the date of advertisement.

7 In view of the foregoing, I do not find any merit in this writ petition,

which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

MARCH 18, 2010                                         S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR '