Delhi High Court
Vijay Nath Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors. on 19 December, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.12.2014
+ WP (C) No.2450 of 2012
VIJAY NATH YADAV ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. U. Srivastava, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 1.3.2012 &
23.3.2012, whereby his candidature for the post of Sub-Inspector in
BSF was cancelled and was discharged from service on the ground
that he was overage for the said post as on the cut off date of
04.07.2008.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Constable in the
Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He joined the Special
Protection Group (Cabinet Secretariat) as an SA on deputation from
17.4.2006 and was also extended the benefits of ACP w.e.f.
26.3.2008. While on deputation, he took the examination for the post
_______________________________________________________________________
of Sub-Inspector in Central Police Organizations (CPOs), 2008,
conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). He was given
an offer of appointment to the BSF in April, 2010 and was required
to report to the BSF Academy, Tekanpur, Gwalior, M.P. on
24.5.2010 for undergoing the basic training. However, subsequently
it was discovered that he was overage for the said post. As per Rules,
the age of entry to the post of Sub-Inspectors in the BSF for persons
serving in Central Police Organisations is 20-25 years, which is
relaxed by 5 years for Central Govt. employees and by another three
years for persons belonging to the OBC category. Therefore, the
maximum age for a person of the OBC category was 33 years
whereas the petitioner an OBC candidate was 35 years, 11 months 14
days old as on the cut off date of 4.7.2008. Accordingly, his
candidature was rejected.
3. The petitioner argues that the age of relaxation for CPOs is 43 years.
He relies upon clause 4(D) of the Advertisement dated 9.11.2008 on
the basis of which the examination for the post of Sub-Inspectors was
conducted. The said clause reads as under:
"4(D). (i) Age relaxation to Central Government Civilian
Employees:
_______________________________________________________________________
Relaxation in upper age limit by 5 years is permissible to
Central Government Civilian Employees who have rendered
not less than 3 years continuous service and regular service as
on 4.7.2008, which is as follows:
(ii) Age Relaxation to Departmental Candidates:
Relaxation in age limits is also admissible to Departmental
Candidates who have rendered not less than 3 years of
continuous and regular service as on 4.7.2008 which is as
follows:
(a) For SIs in ITBP and CRPF: Upto the age of 40 years (45
years for S.C./S.T. and 43 years for OBCs).
(b) For SIs in CISF: Upto the age of 35 years (40 years for
SC/ST and 38 years for OBCs).
(c) For SIs in BSF & SSB: 5 years age relaxation is available
to all Central Government Civilian Servants irrespective of the
Department in which they are working and there is no separate
age relaxation for Departmental candidates of BSF and SSB.
Note: Departmental candidates applying under Sub paras a, b
& c of para 4(D) (ii) as well as Central Government Civilian
employees seeking age relaxation under Para 4(D)(i) above,
would be required to submit a certificate by their office
indicating the length of service rendered by them at the time of
applying for the Examination to enable the Commission to
decide their eligibility."
4. However, the aforesaid clause would show that the age relaxation
was for a candidate of the Central Police Organization, i.e. a
departmental candidate who had sought appointment to the post of
Sub-Inspector in the same organization. Therefore, for a Sub-
Inspector in ITBP or CRPF, the age of relaxation would be 43 years
_______________________________________________________________________
for OBCs whereas it would be 38 years for a person in CISF. The
petitioner was a departmental candidate of the ITBP whereas he had
sought appointment in CISF.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has produced a chart to show
as to how the aforesaid clause 4 has been worked out with respect to
the petitioner. The same is reproduced hereinunder:
S.No. Details Date
1. Date of birth of the candidate, Vijay Nath 21.07.1972
Yadav
2. Working as Constable in the CISF
3. Cut off date/closing date of receipt of 4.7.2008
applications
4. Upper age limit relaxable by 5 years to
Central Government Civilian Employees and
further 3 years relaxable to OBC candidate.
Thus, altogether he was entitled to get age
relaxation up to age of 33 years (25+5+3) for
other than CISF, i.e. CRPF, BSF, ITBP &
SSB and 38 years (35+3) as departmental +
OBC candidate for CISF as per Part II of
Notice.
5. Age as on cut off date 35 years 11
months 14 days
6. Age relaxation sought: as departmental
candidate + OBC category - he, being
employee of CISF, was entitled to be treated
as departmental candidate against CISF
vacancies only, - he was not entitled to get
age relaxation as departmental candidate
against vacancies of CRPF, BSF, ITBP &
SSB - he was entitled to be treated as Central
Government Civilian Employee against
vacancies of aforesaid CPOs.
8. Under Column 19 of the application his B, C, A, D, E
_______________________________________________________________________
preferences for Organization/Service: 1st,2nd,3rd,4th,5th
B-CISF, C-CRPF, A-BSF, D-ITBP and E-
SSB
9. For preference B(CISF) & C (CRPF), he
scored less than cut off marks prescribed for
the two preferences
10. For preference A (BSF), D (ITBP) & E (SSB)
he was overage
Order of Eligible in Age
preferences
B-CISF 35+3 (Departmental OBC)=38 years Yes
C-CRPF 25+5+3(Maximum+CGCE+OBC)=33 years No
A-BSF 25+5+3(Maximum+CGCE+OBC)=33 years No
D-ITBP 25+5+3(Maximum+CGCE+OBC)=33 years No
E-SSB 25+5+3(Maximum+CGCE+OBC)=33 years No
6. From the preceding discussion it is evident that the benefit of 38
years for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in the BSF would
not be available to the petitioner because he was a CISF candidate.
For a CISF and ITBP OBC category candidate the relaxable age is 43
years, if an appointment was sought within those forces. However,
the appointment was sought in the BSF, where the maximum
relaxable age for a non-BSF OBC candidate was 33 years only.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of the higher
age relaxation.
7. We note that the petitioner had listed his preferences for different
CPOs (Civil Police Organization). He did not qualify for his first
two preferences i.e. the CISF and the CRPF since he was low in the
_______________________________________________________________________
order of merit. However, in April, 2010, he was allocated to the BSF
by the respondents in order of merit. An order was issued by the
Special Protection Group (SPG) where he was then serving, putting
him at the disposal of his parent department i.e. the CISF with effect
from 1st December, 2011 for duty and further orders. The CISF
accepted his technical resignation of 22nd May, 2010 and on the 24th
of that month, he was enrolled with the BSF with his past service
benefits. He had almost completed the basic training when on 8th
April, 2011 he was verbally stopped from continuing it. He made
representations against the said stopping of training, which finally
resulted in cancellation of his candidature by the Staff Selection
Commission on 1.3.2012. This Court notes that the petitioner did not
conceal his age from the Staff Selection Commission for the Central
Police Organization Examination, 2008 for recruitment of Sub-
Inspector. The examination form was filled up as per the format.
His age was disclosed as it was without concealing anything relevant.
A separate calculation was not required to be provided by the
candidate, in accordance with the preferences given for allocation of
the different CPOs; which would have been in order of merit. If the
petitioner had scored the requisite marks for the CISF or the CRPF,
_______________________________________________________________________
he would have got into either of the services because he met the age
criteria for those forces. However, he qualified for the BSF as per
his merit. Subsequently he was found to be disqualified because of
being overage. This calculation of overage was done at a much later
stage by the Staff Selection Commission i.e. almost one year after he
had been issued an offer of appointment for the BSF, and was placed
on probation period of two years from that date till the impugned
order of 9.4.2011. The petitioner was regarded and conducted
himself as a Sub-Inspector in the BSF. It was a paradigm shift in his
personal, family and social status, from his previous station in life as
that of a constable. The shock and mental agony which the petitioner
would have undergone is understandable and cannot be condoned
when the basic training was almost completed, he was suddenly
stopped from continuing further. The lack of diligence in processing
the petitioner's case is entirely the fault of the Staff Selection
Commission/respondent No.2; such action cannot be condoned
because it resulted in the present litigation, involving unnecessary
costs and agony to the petitioner. He would need to be compensated
for the same.
8. In the circumstances, while the petitioner would not be permitted to
_______________________________________________________________________
continue in service in the BSF because he did not meet the age
criteria, he would nonetheless be entitled to costs for these
proceedings which are fixed at Rs.75,000/- to be paid by the Staff
Selection Commission within four weeks from today. The petitioner
shall be accepted back into service by the CISF treating his technical
resignation as non est because his subsequent employment in the BSF
has been found to be erroneous. The petitioner cannot be rendered
remediless and out of service. His period of service with the BSF
would be treated as a continuance in service with the CISF from the
date prior to the acceptance/issuance of the technical resignation.
The petition is disposed off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
DECEMBER 19, 2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
b'nesh
_______________________________________________________________________
