Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Yadav vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 29 April, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9294/2014
SANJEEV YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing
Counsel with Ms. Sana Ansari &
Ms. Vanessa Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER
% 29.04.2015
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. Nos. 21063/2014 (Exemptions)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9294/2014 & CM APPL. Nos. 21062/2014
This Writ Petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2014
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') whereby
the learned Tribunal had disposed of the Original Application (in short
'OA') No.3040/2014 preferred by the petitioner.
The grievance raised by the petitioner is that he has been denied
the relaxation of 5 years being a departmental candidate and if this
relaxation is given to him then he would be entitled to a total relaxation of
8 years to make him entitled to seek appointment to the post of Librarian
in terms of the advertisement issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'DSSB').
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The DSSB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had issued an advertisement
No.02/2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment
to various posts in the Department under Govt. of NCT of Delhi, its
autonomous bodies and Delhi Public Library.
The petitioner herein had applied for the post of Librarian against
the Post Code Nos. 69/2010 and 02/13 but his candidature was rejected
by the respondents on the ground of his being overage. The age limit laid
down for the said post was 32 years but the petitioner had crossed the age
limit as on the cut off date laid down in the notice. The grievance of the
petitioner is that he was a departmental candidate and therefore, in
addition to the relaxation of 3 years under the OBC category he was also
entitled to a relaxation of 5 years as departmental candidate and therefore,
in all, he was entitled to the relaxation of 8 years.
The learned Tribunal did not find any merit in the plea raised by
the petitioner. The learned Tribunal took a view that even if he was given
the age relaxation admissible either under OBC category or as a
Departmental candidate, he would still get a maximum relaxation upto
the age limit of 35 years and since he had already crossed the age of 36
years, therefore, he was ineligible to apply for the said post.
On perusal of the advertisement notice, we do not find that the age
relaxation under OBC category for a departmental candidate is over and
above the relaxation of 3 years available to him. The petitioner is thus not
entitled to relaxation of 8 years as claimed by him. Even otherwise as per
the Office Memorandum dated 27.03.2012, five years' relaxation was
available for posts which are in the same line or allied cadres and the
petitioner herein was a LDC and was seeking appointment to the post of
Librarian, therefore, the post of Librarian cannot be treated to be in the
same line or in the allied cadre and therefore, also the petitioner was not
entitled to relaxation of 5 years as a Departmental candidate.
There is no merit in the present Writ Petition and the same
alongwith pending applications are hereby dismissed.
(KAILASH GAMBHIR)
JUDGE
(I.S.MEHTA)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2015
v
