Sunita Rani Verma vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 1354 Del

$~9
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               Date of hearing and Order: February 13, 2015.
+     W.P.(C) 7883/2014
      SUNITA RANI VERMA
                                                            ..... Petitioner
                    Through:           Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
                    versus
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS
                                                            ..... Respondent
                          Through:     Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with
                                       Mr.S.S. Rai, Advocate for res n1 and
                                       2.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

                                 ORDER

% KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 16.08.2012 passed by the

learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in

O.A. No. 2570/2012, whereby the Original Application preferred by the

petitioner was dismissed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant petition is that she

has been wrongly denied participation in the selection process for

appointment on the post of 'Vocational Instructor, Trade-Dress Making'

owing to her over age and ignoring the fact that she was entitled to the said

post not only on the ground of relaxation as an OBC candidate but also as a

divorcee.

3. Another grievance raised by the petitioner is that at the time of

making application pursuant to Advertisement No.22/08, she was eligible

for consideration and therefore based on her eligibility she ought to have

been considered for selection for the vacancy arising out of the

advertisement issued in the next year vide Advertisement No.03/2009. The

petitioner sought direction from the respondent to declare her result of

previous two selection processes and had also prayed for an interim order

for restraining the respondent from holding the selection process on

14.4.2009 and also to not to fill up the post of Vocational Instructor in the

Trade of Dress Making. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Original Application filed by the

petitioner vide order dated 12.05.2009 and the petitioner had challenged the

said decision before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in AST No.308/2009

and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court while disposing the petition filed by

the petitioner had observed that it will be open for the petitioner to revive

her application in the event there is any fresh cause of action. The learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondents had subsequently

published Advertisement No.08/2010 dated 24.4.2010 for one post of

Vocational Instructor (Dress Making) reserved for OBC against which,

again the petitioner had submitted her application well within time but again

she was not called for interview and this is how the fresh cause of action

arose to the petitioner to file O.A.No. 2570/2012 but the same was dismissed

by the learned Tribunal in limini on 16.8.2012 without appreciating the

merits of the case of the petitioner.

4. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and also gone through the record of this case.

5. In so far as the advertisement of the year 2010 is concerned, the

petitioner was not called for interview on the ground of being over age.

Counsel representing the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the

necessary age relaxation to the petitioner as an OBC candidate and also

being a divorcee was granted to by the respondent, however the petitioner

was still found over age, having completed the age of 38 years on 30.6.2008

and the cut off date being 9th March 2009. The claim of the petitioner is that

she should have been considered against the vacancy which had arisen in the

year 2009 and a fresh cause of action has arisen in her favour, when the

respondent had advertised a fresh vacancy pursuant to the advertisement No.

08/2010.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner

did not dispute the fact that the petitioner was over age as she had completed

38 years of age as on 30.6.2008 and therefore, even after grant of age

relaxation of 3 years as an OBC candidate and five years of being divorcee,

she became over age as on the date of 9.3.2009.

7. Having not disputed the aforesaid fact of the petitioner being over age

as on 9.3.2009, we find no tangible ground to interfere in the order passed

by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original

Application, in limine, preferred by the petitioner without directing notice of

the same to the respondent. Finding no merit in the petition filed by the

petitioner, the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Accordingly, the order passed dated 16.08.2012 passed by the learned

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.

2570/2012 is upheld.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J

I.S. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 13, 2015 pkb