Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 771 (ORI)

Sarat Kumar Parida v. Union of India

2010-11-16

PRADIP MOHANTY, S.K.MISHRA

body2010
JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. — Petitioner assails the judgment dated 22.5.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No. 608 of 2004 wherein the prayer of the petitioner to further relax the age for two years in pursuant to Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limit for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ”relevant rules” for brevity) was denied. 2.The undisputed facts in this case are that pursuant to the Notification dated 10th March, 2004 while working as Technical Officer in the Regional Medical Research Centre, Bhubaneswar, the petitioner applied through proper channel to the post of Senior Research Officer (Entomology). However, he did not get any call letter while others were called to face the test. He made various representations, but without any result. It is the further case of the petitioner that he came to know his candidature has been rejected due to his over age without giving age relaxation as provided under Rule 3 of the relevant rules. According to the petitioner without considering his candidature in proper perspective by giving age relaxation applicable to Government employees, opposite party No.2 has conducted the selection for the post of Senior Research Officer (Entomology) on 27.8.2004. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that the candidature of opposite party No.4 (Dr. R.K.Hazra) was taken into consideration in relaxation of his age and he was selected and has joined in the post of Senior Research Officer (Entomology) on 03.10.2004. Therefore, he approached the learned Tribunal for a direction to extend age relaxation for two years by resorting to Rule 3. 3.The opposite parties have filed counter affidavit before the learned Tribunal, inter alia, pleading that the application of the petitioner cannot be entertained as the petitioner was over age on the cut off date stipulated in the advertisement. Further, the petitioner being a departmental candidate, is entitled for relaxation of up to five years, in other words, if the petitioner is within the age of 50(45+5), the candidature of the petitioner ought to have been considered, but as the date of birth of the petitioner is 08.1.1953, the petitioner was over aged on the cut off date. They further pleaded that Dr. R.K. Hazra has not been given any differential treatment and therefore prayed to dismiss the writ petition. They further pleaded that Dr. R.K. Hazra has not been given any differential treatment and therefore prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4.The pivotal question which requires determination in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Rule 3, i.e. relaxation of two years over and above the relaxation of the five years as provided in Rule 6 of the relevant rules. In order to adjudicate this issue, it is appropriate to take note of the relevant provisions as well as the stipulations made in the advertisement. The advertisement in question has clearly made stipulations regarding the age of the petitioner which reads as under: “AGE: Below 50 years for the post of Dy. Director and below 45 years for the posts of Ads and SROs. SC/ST/OBC and departmental candidates are allowed relaxation in accordance with the Central Government Rules, in force.” The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in addition to this relaxation of five years, the petitioner is entitled to a relaxation of two years as per Rule 3. It is appropriate to quote Rule 3 for proper appreciation. “3. Increase in the upper age limit:- The upper age limit for recruitment by the method of Direct Open Competitive Examination to the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts specified in the relevant Service/Recruitment Rules on the date of commencement of the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper age limit for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998, shall be increased by two years. There is Note to such Rules which reads as follows: “Note-Direct Open Competitive Examination for the purpose of these rules shall mean direct recruitment by Open Competitive Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission or the Staff Selection Commission or any other authority under the Central Government and it shall not include recruitment through limited Departmental Examination or through short listing or by interview or by contract’ or by absorption or transfer or deputation.” Thus, relaxation envisages in Rule 3 is applicable to any direct open competitive examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (for short “U.P.S.C”) or the Staff Selection Commission (for short “S.S.C”) or any other authority under the Central Government. Thus, such relaxation is not applicable to any open competition examination conducted by the department. On the contrary, Rule 6 is applicable to all recruitment to Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts. Thus, such relaxation is not applicable to any open competition examination conducted by the department. On the contrary, Rule 6 is applicable to all recruitment to Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts. Rule 6 reads as follows:- “6. The upper age relaxation admissible to Government employees for direct recruitment to Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts-1. The following decisions have been taken in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission:- (i) Government servants may not be allowed any relaxation of age for recruitment to Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ posts on the basis of competitive examinations held by the Commission, except in cases where it has been specifically provided for in the scheme of the examinations approved in consultation with the Commission. (ii) Government servants may be allowed, on a uniform basis, relaxation of a maximum of five years in the upper age limit for recruitment to other Group ‘A’; or Group ‘B’ posts by advertisements through the Commission. The age relaxation will be admissible to such of the Government servants as are working in posts which are in the same line or allied cadres and where a relationship could be established that the service already rendered in a particular post will be useful for the efficient discharge of the duties of the post(s) recruitment to which has been advertised. Decision in this regard will rest with the Commission”. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6 further clarify that the instructions that this concession is available to departmental candidates for recruitment to Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts which are exempted from the purview of the U.P.S.C. and, therefore, recruitment to which is made by the organizations themselves. 5.From the above scheme, it is clear that the relevant rules provide for a concession of two years in cases of direct open competition examination which is conducted by the statutory body like the U.P.S.C. and S.S.C. whereas the relaxation of five years as envisaged to Rule 6 is not applicable to any recruitment made by the Commission unless it is specifically provided by the scheme. On the other hand, such recruitment may have a maximum of five years of upper age limit of relaxation to Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts if the recruitment is conducted by the organization themselves. The rules in essence exclude any probabilities of double benefit. On the other hand, such recruitment may have a maximum of five years of upper age limit of relaxation to Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts if the recruitment is conducted by the organization themselves. The rules in essence exclude any probabilities of double benefit. In other words, by necessary application the rule provide that where two years relaxation as per Rule 3 is applicable the five years relaxation as per Rule 6 shall not be applicable and vice versa. Applying this principle to the present case, it is seen that the advertisement has been made by the department and there has already been a relaxation of five years for all departmental candidates. That being so, the relaxation age envisaged in Rule 3 to the relevant rules shall not be applicable to the case over and above the five years relaxation age as envisaged under Rule 6 of the relevant rules. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to a relaxation of two years in addition to the five years relaxation is not tenable and the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality requiring an interference of this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. PRADIP MOHANTY, J.I agree. Petition dismissed.