Delhi High Court
Jaibir Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 25 May, 2023
2023:DHC:3674-DB
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: May 25, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 7364/2023 & CM Appls. 28683/2023, 28711/2023
JAIBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Addl.
Standing Counsel with
Mr. Jyoti Tyagi and
Ms. Manisha, Advs. for
respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM Appls. 28683/2023 & 28711/2023
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7364/2023
1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated March 14, 2023
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
('Tribunal', for short) in O.A. 718/2018 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed
the O.A. filed by the petitioner by stating as under:-
"9. Having considered the legal position involved in the present
case, we are of the considered view that the case of the applicant
falls in the same category, where the Apex Court has held that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH W.P.(C) 7364/2023 Page 1
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:27.05.2023
16:33:02
2023:DHC:3674-DB
Recruitment Rules prevails over the Advertisement (supra).
Hence, the present OA lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.
No costs."
2. The challenge of the petitioner before the Tribunal was with regard to
an order dated January 19, 2018 issued by the Vice Principal, Government
Boys Senior Secondary School whereby he was relieved from the post of
Lecturer, Physical Education (Guest Teacher).
3. The petitioner, pursuant an advertisement issued by the respondents
had applied for the said post. The advertisement stipulated the maximum age
limit as 36 years. Based on the application, the petitioner having been found
successful, was appointed on the said post.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of order dated January 18,
2018 he had joined his posting as a Guest Teacher. However, one day
thereafter he was relieved in terms of the corrigendum issued on January 19,
2018, which is not tenable.
5. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the depiction
of the maximum age limit of 36 years in the advertisement was not in
conformity with the recruitment rules as the same prescribe the maximum
age limit of 30 years for general candidates.
6. It was also the stand of the respondents before the Tribunal that on the
error being noticed, the corrigendum dated January 19, 2018 was issued.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that once the
petitioner has appeared in the selection process and having been found
successful, appointed and also joined, his appointment could not have been
cancelled. He also submits that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the
judgment of the Supreme Court is misplaced. The Judgment is clearly
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH W.P.(C) 7364/2023 Page 2
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:27.05.2023
16:33:02
2023:DHC:3674-DB
distinguishable inasmuch as in the said case, the candidature was cancelled
during the selection process, not after appointment as is the case here.
8. Mr. Yeeshu Jain appearing for the respondents would submit that a
notice dated January 16, 2018 was issued by the respondents wherein it is
clearly stated:-
"1. Give the concerned Guest Teachers manual joining if the
teacher fulfills all eligibility condition for his/her particular
posts/subjects laid by DOE as per existing RRs."
9. He states in view of the notice dated January 16, 2018, the petitioner
could not have been appointed being over-aged. He also states, despite
notice dated January 16, 2018, the petitioner joined the post. Immediately
on coming to know the error, action has been taken to relieve the petitioner.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are not in
agreement with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner
for the reason that he does not contest that the maximum age limit
prescribed in the advertisement was at variance with the Recruitment Rules
which prescribed that the maximum age limit as 30 years.
11. The only submission on behalf of the petitioner is that he having been
appointed on the post concerned which he had joined, he could not have
been relieved. Such a submission is without any merit for the simple reason
that the impugned order which was challenged before the Tribunal was to
bring the appointment in conformity with the Recruitment Rules which is
any appointment necessarily be of a person who is below 30 years of age,
which admittedly the petitioner was not, on the date of appointment.
12. Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
judgment relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH W.P.(C) 7364/2023 Page 3
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:27.05.2023
16:33:02
2023:DHC:3674-DB
and Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., (2006) 9 SCC 507, is
distinguishable is concerned, the Supreme Court has clearly held that:-
"Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per
the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be
made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the
advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in
favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the
Rules."
The Judgment clearly applies to the issue which arose for
consideration before the Tribunal.
13. We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the O.A.
14. In view of our discussion, we do not see any merit in the petition. The
same is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MAY 25, 2023/ds
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH W.P.(C) 7364/2023 Page 4
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:27.05.2023
16:33:02
