Delhi High Court
Ds Rana & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi & Ors on 27 May, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5520/2015
% 27th May, 2015
DS RANA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. J.S.Mann, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Sr. CGSC for R-
1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 9930/2015 (delay in filing)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the writ
petition is condoned. CM stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 5520/2015 & CM No. 9929/2015 (stay)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioner questions the action of respondent nos. 1 to 3 whereby after
contractual period of employment of the petitioners, petitioners have not
WP(C) 5520/2015 Page 1 of 3
been given employment but other persons have been given contractual
employment and which latter persons are below 63 years of age. Petitioners
question the impugned order dated 23.6.2014 by which contractual
employments of petitioners have not been extended. It is alleged that non-
extension of contractual employment of petitioners is an arbitrary action.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed under the
Universalization of Elementary Education Scheme framed by the Central
Government and executed through the State Government. Petitioners are
retired teachers, vice-principals, principals and were appointed on contract
basis in Cluster Resource Centre Co-ordinator Programme. Petitioners
during the period of service crossed the age of 63 years and now the
respondents vide their public notice dated 2.6.2014, have employed persons
by specifying a requirement in the notice that a candidate should not be more
than 63 years of age as on 1.6.2014.
3. The issue is that whether putting a term of employment of persons
only below 63 years of age is in any manner illegal or arbitrary.
4. It is settled law that courts do not substitute their decisions for the
decisions of the administrative authorities as to what should be the cut-off
age of employment. Surely courts are ill-equipped to take decisions as to
WP(C) 5520/2015 Page 2 of 3
why a particular age should not be fixed beyond which a person should not
be employed. Unless and until a clear-cut case of gross arbitrariness and
illegality is found, courts would be over-stepping their jurisdiction in
substituting their decisions for that of the administrative authorities by fixing
a particular age bar which will be at variance at the age bar which is fixed by
the authorities.
5. Counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners had worked even
after the age of 63 years, however that is not the issue because the petitioners
worked during the period of their contractual services and contracts have not
been renewed after their contractual period has expired. Also, if now there
is a conscious decision to fix a particular age bar, it cannot be held that there
is any illegality or arbitrariness in such an action of the administrative
authority in fixing of an age bar.
6. Dismissed.
MAY 27, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
