Dharmendra Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3517 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                         Date of Decision: 25.05.2012


+                         W.P.(C) No.3233/2012


Dharmendra Kumar                                 ...       Petitioner

                                  versus

Union of India & Ors.                            ...       Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner        :     Mr.Dalip Singh, Advocate
For Respondents           :     Mr.Rajinder    Nischal   &       Mr.Ashish
                                Nischal, Advocates


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

CM No.6912/2012

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.3233/2012

1. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to extend

the benefit of age relaxation by three years for the OBC candidate in the

Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.

2. The petitioner has contended that he was recruited as a

Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force in September, 1994. The

petitioner was selected as Sub Inspector through the Limited

Departmental Competitive Examination held on 14th May, 2006 and

thereafter, he was promoted as Inspector w.e.f. 9th August, 2010. The

petitioner contended that since then he has been working as an

Inspector without any complaints and with an unblemished record.

3. The petitioner further disclosed that an advertisement for

selection to the post of Assistant Commandant (GD) by the Limited

Departmental Competitive Examination was issued on 16th April, 2012

and the applications were invited from serving Inspector (GD) and Sub-

Inspectors (GD) from the different Para Military Forces. The posts of

Assistant Commandant (GD) were temporary and were likely to be made

permanent according to the exigencies of the circumstances.

4. According to the petitioner, the eligibility criteria as stated in the

advertisement was 35 years as on 1st August, 2011, however, the

eligibility of 35 years as on 1st August, 2011 was relaxable by 5 years

for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. The petitioner

also submitted that there has not been any age relaxation provided in

the advertisement for OBC candidate.

5. The petitioner alleged that he had handed over the

representation/request for amending the said advertisement and

extending the benefit of age relaxation for OBC candidates as well.

Since the request of the petitioner for age relaxation for OBC candidate

was not considered and acceded to, he could not apply and submit the

application for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD) in the Central

Reserve Police Force as the last date for submission of the forms was 5th

May, 2012. In the circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present

writ petition to seek the relaxation of 3 years of age for the candidates

belonging to OBC category.

6. The plea of the petitioner is contested by Sh. Rajinder Nischal,

Advocate, who has appeared on advance notice on behalf of the

respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that

the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination is in respect of the

posts notified by the respondents. The posts of Assistant Commandant

(GD) which had been notified by the respondents, were 5 vacancies for

Scheduled Castes, 2 vacancies for Scheduled Tribes and 25 unreserved

vacancies, therefore a total of 31 vacancies. Learned counsel contended

that no vacancy for OBC candidates had been notified and

consequently, the petitioner cannot claim that there should be

vacancies for OBC category also and that the benefit of age relaxation

should be extended to the OBC category as well.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, and

have also perused the advertisement given by the respondents and the

vacancies notified by them for the posts of Assistant Commandant (GD).

This cannot be disputed and has not been disputed that no vacancy for

the OBC category has been notified by the Limited Departmental

Competitive Examination. Since no vacancy has been notified, the

petitioner cannot claim that the respondents must notify the vacancies

for OBC category. Also no rule or regulation or precedent has been cited

by which it will be made obligatory on the part of the respondents to

notify the vacancies for the OBC category for Limited Departmental

Competitive Examination wherein the vacancies for Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes only have been notified.

8. If there are no vacancies for the OBC category, the petitioner

cannot claim that there must be vacancies for the OBC category or that

the petitioner should be given age relaxation of five years which is

applicable only to the candidates of Schedule Castes and Schedule

Tribes. Since there are no OBC category vacancies, therefore, if the age

relaxation for OBC category has not been considered, then no illegality

or irregularity can be imputed to the actions of the respondents in not

considering the representation of the petitioner seeking three years age

relaxation in this regard.

9. There are no grounds, in the facts and circumstances, for the

petitioner to claim three years age relaxation for the OBC category, as

there are no OBC category vacancies for the post of Assistant

Commandant. The writ petition, in the facts and circumstances, is

without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.

CM No.6913/2012

Since the main petition has been dismissed, this application does

not survive.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

MAY 25, 2012 vk