Delhi High Court
Syed Mehedi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 10 July, 2014
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 10.07.2014
+ W.P.(C) 2887/2014
SYED MEHEDI ..... Petitioner
Through : Sh. Ashok Aggarwal with Sh.
Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Divya Aggarwal and
Ms. Nisha Tomar, Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing
Counsel (GNCTD) and Ms. Sana Ansari,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
C.M. APPL. 5990/2014 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2887/2014
1. The petitioner challenges an order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 07.03.2014 by which his
application before it, for appropriate directions with respect to
age relaxation for recruitment to the post of Special Educator in
the Govt. of NCT schools, was rejected.
W.P.(C)2887/2014 Page 1
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a qualified Special
Educator, holding B.Ed qualification which he acquired in
2009. By a judgment dated 16.09.2009 in Social Jurist v. Govt.
of NCT of Delhi, this Court directed the government agencies to
take immediate steps for the recruitment of Special Educators in
all schools managed by State government and local bodies.
Consequently, on 04.11.2010, the posts were sanctioned; the
vacancies for recruitment towards these posts were advertised
sometime in January-February 2013. The advertisement - in the
present case - called for applications, the last date being
20.02.2013. Besides spelling-out the educational qualifications,
the advertisement also specified the age-limit which was 30
years in terms of the recruitment rules notified at that time. The
advertisement also stated that the age-limit could be relaxed at
the discretion of the Government, again reiterating the rules.
The petitioner concededly applied before the last date
prescribed. However, since he did not fulfil the age criteria, he
sought a relaxation of the age limit. Complaining that the
respondents did not deal with the representation, he approached
the CAT. During the pendency of the proceedings before the
CAT, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the
recruitment process but the results were not permitted to be
declared and they were kept in a sealed cover. By the impugned
order, the CAT ultimately rejected the petitioner's application.
It is contended that since the posts were only created in the year
2010 and since there is a need for large number of Special
W.P.(C)2887/2014 Page 2
Educators, the refusal of the Department to consider and pass
any orders with regard to age relaxation is arbitrary. Learned
counsel submitted that the original advertisement which is in
question in the present proceeding, had sought applications for
927 posts of which only about 200 could be filled-up and even
as on date, several vacancies exist. The posts were readvertised.
It is pointed-out further that despite successive examinations,
the posts have not been filled. Learned counsel lastly relied
upon a Notification/Public Notice dated 26.03.2013, which
granted blanket age relaxation to women candidates for the post
of Special Educators. It was submitted that having regard to
these facts, it is evident that there is no overwhelming public
interest in denying the petitioner of the age relaxation; the
petitioner's request can be considered reasonably having regard
to the need to fill the posts with the most suitable candidates in
the larger public interest.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the
representation seeking age relaxation was made by the
petitioner beyond the notified date for applying for the post. It
was submitted that even before the CAT, at best the petitioner's
claim was only being considered for age relaxation, which
cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Responding to the
argument with respect to the Notification dated 26.03.2013, it
was urged that it is clear that such gender-based classification is
justified having regard to the nature of the posts.
W.P.(C)2887/2014 Page 3
4. It is evident from the above narrative that the post of
Special Educators was created pursuant to directions of this
Court. Not only the Govt. of NCT of Delhi but other local
bodies, such the MCD and NDMC were required to take such
measures to cater to the needs of the special children in view of
the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Rules, 1996. The judgment was delivered in 2009; however, the
first recruitment drive appears to have been undertaken more
than four years later in 2013. Naturally, at the stage when the
rules were notified, the eligible candidates/individuals who
might have been otherwise eligible to hold the posts became
ineligible, by sheer lapse of time. In these circumstances, it was
to cater to these situations and other exigency that the provision
for age relaxation has been apparently factored in the rules.
That the respondent Department is alive to the need to pass
orders with respect to age relaxation, having regard to the larger
public interest in filling-up posts, is also clear from its Public
Notice dated 26.03.2013, relaxing the age of female candidates
by 10 years. Concededly, this Court is not called upon to decide
the legality of such a blanket age relaxation, exclusively based
on gender. What is apparent, however, from such general order
is that the respondents themselves are alive to the fact that there
is a crying need to fill the posts and need to take one general
measure, identifying all female candidates being eligible for age
relaxation for 10 years. This implies that all candidates who are
W.P.(C)2887/2014 Page 4
otherwise eligible but are not women should not be
discriminated against at least with respect to consideration of
their request for age relaxation. We are fortified in this
conclusion because of the events which occurred; despite
directions of this Court which were issued over 5 years ago and
the advertisement, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi has not been able
to fill the posts.
5. In the circumstances, we direct the GNCTD to consider
the petitioner's request, having regard to the Notification dated
26.03.2013, without being inhibited by the fact that he would
not be eligible in terms of the Notification on the ground that he
does not fulfil the gender criteria. Instead, the GNCTD must
keep in mind that a general relaxation of 10 years has been
provided for. Other relevant factors too shall be taken into
account. This exercise of considering the petitioner's
application and case for age relaxation shall be completed and a
reasoned order indicated to him directly, within six weeks from
today. The order, if adverse shall be reasoned. The writ petition
is allowed in the above terms.
Order dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
VIPIN SANGHI
(JUDGE)
JULY 10, 2014/ajk
W.P.(C)2887/2014 Page 5
