Delhi High Court
Govt Of Nct Of Dlehi & Ors. vs Vandana Gupta And Ors on 6 August, 2021
$~S-12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4749/2021
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel with Mrs. Tania Ahlawat,
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh and Ms.
Palak Rohemetra, Advocates.
versus
VANDANA GUPTA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 06th August, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
CM APPL. 22319/2021
2. Present application has been filed seeking recall of the order dated
25th May, 2021 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 4749/2021 to the extent
liberty had been granted to petitioners to file Review Application before the
Tribunal. The applicant also seeks dismissal of the said WP (C) No.
4749/2021 with cost.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:08.08.2021
09:29:09
3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that applicant was respondent
no.9 in WP (C) No. 4749/2021 who had filed OA before the Tribunal along
with 53 other similarly placed persons seeking directions to grant age
relaxation at par with similarly placed guest/ contractual teachers.
4. He points out that as neither Respondent no. 9 nor any other
respondent was represented before this Court on 25th May 2021, it could not
be brought to the notice of this Court that the very basis to claim age
relaxation before the CAT was that the contractual employee needs to be
treated as departmental candidate and in that eventuality, he or she would be
entitled for age relaxation for five years. He submits that the petitioners had
not disclosed that the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT') while
passing the impugned order had relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of DSSSB and Anr Vs Seema Kapoor,
W.P.(C) No. 1738/2019, wherein it was held as under:
"9. Therefore, the submission of Ms. Ahlawat that the
office memorandum dated 27.03.2012, in terms, states that it
applies only to Central Government Civilian employees, is
neither here nor there. The same is rejected.
10. These instructions/ office memorandum provide in
Clause 12 that "Departmental Candidates with three years
continuous service in Central Government" would enjoy "extent
of age concession" "upto 40 years of age (45 years for SC/ST)"
"for appointment to Group 'C' and erstwhile 'D' (now MTS
posts) by direct recruitment which are in the same line or allied
cadres)". The post of PGT (English) Female is a Group‟„C
post.
11. Moreover, as noticed hereinabove, the advertisement
in question itself provides for age relaxation, inter alia, in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:08.08.2021
09:29:09
relation to "Departmental candidates with at least 3 years
continous service in GNCTD/ its legal or autonomous bodies". It
is not the submission of Ms. Ahlawat and it cannot be argued that
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not a legal or autonomous
body of the GNCTD. In respect of such departmental candidates,
5 years of age relaxation for Group B posts is permissible, which
the post in question i.e PGT (English) Female is.
12. It is not even been contended that the said post is not in
the same line or allied cadre, in which the respondent was
serving when she made the application. She was serving as a
Teacher (Primary) in SDMC. Thus, in any event, she was entitled
to age relaxation in terms of the advertisement itself."
5. Per contra, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioners
states that the judgment of this Court in DSSSB and Anr Vs Seema Kapoor
(supra) has been set aside by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil)
No.19968/2019 vide judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2021.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that by way of impugned order dated 25th May, 2021, it had only permitted
the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal raising
the ground that Respondent no. 9 had availed age relaxation benefit in the
requisition sent by the MCD.
7. However, in the impugned judgement, this Court had not commented
or taken a view with regard to the said plea of the petitioner.
8. It was clarified that Respondent no. 9/applicant herein would be at
liberty to raise all the arguments before the CAT. In fact, in the impugned
order, it was clarified that that this Court had not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the application proposed to be filed by the petitioners and all
the rights and contentions of the parties with regard to said application were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:08.08.2021
09:29:09
left open. The issue whether plea of the petitioners is based on falsehood is
also a fact which had to be decided by the CAT after hearing all the parties.
9. In any event, as the judgment in DSSSB and Anr Vs Seema Kapoor
(supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant has been set aside by
the Supreme Court and the Review Application filed by the petitioner has
already been allowed by the CAT, we find no merit in the present
application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
AUGUST 6, 2021
TS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:08.08.2021
09:29:09
