Delhi High Court
Nirmala Rani vs Chief Secretary Govt. Of Nct Of ... on 5 February, 2020
$~34, 35 & 41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order : 5th February, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 1343/2020, CM APPLs. 4644/2020 & 4646/2020
SUSHMA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 1344/2020, CM APPLs. 4647/2020 & 4649/2020
MADHUBALA ..... Petitioner
versus
CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 1366/2020, CM APPLs. 4754/2020 & 4756/2020
NIRMALA RANI ..... Petitioner
versus
CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Present : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate for petitioners in all items.
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for GNCTD
(Services) with Mr. N.K. Singh, Advocate in all items.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 4645/2020 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 1343/2020
CM APPL. 4648/2020 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 1344/2020
CM APPL. 4755/2020 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 1366/2020
1. Exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1343/2020 & CM APPLs. 4644/2020 & 4646/2020
W.P.(C) 1344/2020 & CM APPLs. 4647/2020 & 4649/2020
W.P.(C) 1366/2020 & CM APPLs. 4754/2020 & 4756/2020
3. The present petitions are directed against order dated 21.10.2019 passed
by Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal').
4. Notice to show cause as to why the petitions be not admitted. Mrs.
Avnish Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of
the respondents.
5. Since a common question arises for consideration in all these three writ
petitions, we are deciding them by a common order.
6. For the sake of convenience the facts in W.P.(C) 1343/2020 are being
noticed for disposal of all the writ petitions.
7. Pursuant to an advertisement bearing No.04/2017 dated 20.12.2017 in
respect of the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery) with Post Code 88/17
in W.P.(C) 1343/2020, Post Code 90/17 in W.P.(C) 1344/2020 and Post
Code 90/17 in W.P.(C) 1366/2020, the petitioners approached the
Tribunal seeking age relaxation. In the batch of matters, vide orders
dated 22nd/23rd October 2010, directions were issued to the respondents
to allow the candidates to appear in the examination; and subsequently
a final order was passed directing the respondents to declare the results
and allow the candidates who were not selected to make
representations. All three petitioners herein have cleared the
examination but their candidature has been rejected on account of being
over-age.
8. Counsel for petitioners submits that (i) petitioner-Sushma Gupta was
over-age by only 5 months and few days, (ii) petitioner/Nirmala Rani
was over-age by 6 months and few days, despite age relaxation of 10
years being SC candidate and also guest teachers; and (iii) petitioner-
Madhubala was over-age by four years and few months despite giving
benefit of 8 years being OBC candidate and a guest-teacher.
9. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that at the time of being
appointed as guest-teachers, the petitioners were within the age limit
and thus should not be penalized and ought to be given age relaxation
for the entire time that they served as guest-teachers. Counsel has relied
upon a Notification dated 01.11.1980 issued by Lt. Governor of Delhi
whereins, under Rule 43 of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973, age
relaxation of upto 10 years has been provided to women candidates.
Counsel further submits that judgments relied upon by the Tribunal
would not apply to facts of the present case.
10. Mrs. Ahlawat submits that there is no infirmity in the order of the
Tribunal. She submits that all three petitioners have already been given
the maximum permissible age relaxation. Petitioner-Sushma Gupta has
been given age relaxation of 5 years for being a guest-teacher.
Similarly, petitioner-Madhubala has been given age relaxation of 8
years; 5 years for being guest-teacher and 3 years for being an OBC
candidate; and Petitioner-Nirmala Rani has been given age relaxation of
10 years, 5 years for being guest-teacher and 5 years for being an SC
candidate. She submits that further age relaxation is not possible. She
submits that despite the relaxation given candidate Sushma Gupta is
over-age by 5 months and few days; Nirmala Rani is over-age by 6
months and few days and Madhubala is over-age by 4 years and few
months.
11. Mrs. Ahlawat submits that the question with regard to applicability of
Notification dated 01.11.1980 sought to be relied upon by the
petitioners has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this court in Raj
Bala & Another Vs. GNCTD & others W.P. (C) 7240/2017 decided on
23.08.2017. She relies on paras 6, 17 & 18 of this judgment, which we
reproduce below :
6. The submission of the petitioners was that there was no
conscious decision taken by the Lt. Governor of Delhi to
discontinue the application of the notification dated
01.11.1980 after the making of Rules of 2011. The further
submission was that the general age relaxation granted by
the statutory notification dated 01.11.1980 would apply
with equal force, even in respect of the Rules of 2011.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
17. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners
that there was no conscious decision taken to do away with
the age relaxation granted vide notification dated
01.11.1980, after the making of the Rules of 2011, also has
no merit. This is for the reason that the Rules of 2011 have
been made by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi
himself in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India. There is a presumption of
validity attached to official acts, and it was for the
petitioners to rebut the same by producing cogent material.
The petitioners, apart from claiming that there was no
conscious decision taken by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, not
to apply the notification dated 01.11.1980 in respect of
recruitment of PETs under the Rules of 2011, has not
produced any material in support of the said plea. On the
other hand, the respondents, in their counter affidavit
before the Tribunal have specifically averred that while
amending the recruitment rules for PET, vide Rules of 2011,
the notification dated 01.11.1980 had been taken into
account and that the Recruitment Rules for PET had been
amended in consultation with the UPSC and that they were
as per the DoPT norms.
18. The relaxation granted to women candidates by the
Hon'ble Lt. Governor vide notification dated 01.11.1980 in
exercise of powers under Rules 43 of the Delhi School
Education Rules was granted when the preexisting rules
were in force. With the enforcement of the amended Rules of
2011 in respect of recruitment of PETs, in our view, it could
not be said that the said relaxation continued when the
amended Recruitment Rules, in no uncertain terms place an
upper age limit of "not exceeding 30 years" and neither the
Rules of 2011, nor the DoPT instructions/guidelines provide
any age relaxation to women candidates."
12. Mrs. Ahlawat further submits that a similar issue was also raised and
dealt with in a batch of 90 writ petitions connected with Sachin Gupta
& Others Vs. DSSSB reported as 152 (2008) DLT 378 (DB). Counsel
contends that once Recruitment Rules of 2011 are in place, there was no
reason to rely upon Notification dated 01.11.1980.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered their
rival submissions.
14. It is not in dispute that all three petitioners have been working as guest-
teachers for approximately 5-8 years. It is also not in dispute that all
three petitioners were given age relaxation in compliance with the
Recruitment Rules of 2011, in the following manner :
S.No. Petitioners Age relaxation
1 Sushma Gupta in 5 years, being guest-teacher
W.P. (C) 1343/2020
2 Madhubala in W.P. 8 years (5 years, being guest-teacher
(C) 1344/2020 and 3 years, being OBC candidate)
3 Nirmala Rani in W.P. 10 years (5 years, being guest-
(C) 1366/2020 teacher and 5 years, being SC
candidate)
15. In view of the law laid down in the case of Raj Bala (supra) and also
the fact that despite being given a permissible age relaxation all three
petitioners are still over-age, no relief could have been be granted to the
petitioners. We find no infirmity in the order of Tribunal.
16. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon order/direction dated 02.07.2019
in the case of Syed Mehedi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others (W.P.
(C) No.1200/2016) to show that in the said cases male candidates have
been given age relaxation upto 10 years. Mrs. Ahlawat disputes that
such age relaxation has been given. Additionally, learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that age relaxation should be given as was given
in the case of DSSSB & anr. Vs. Preeti Rathi & ors. (W.P.
(C)1641/2011) decided on 15.11.2011. In case any appointment has
been made granting age relaxation as counsel for the petitioners is
pointing-out, the same treatment will be met-out to the petitioners as
well.
17. Mrs. Ahlawat submits that in the said judgments the court has dealt
specifically with a special class of teachers/special educators.
18. In view of above, we find no merit in the writ petitions; and all the writ
petitions and pending applications are accordingly dismissed.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
FEBRUARY 05, 2020/ck
