Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2130 (RAJ)

Seema Ramchandani v. Union Of India

2022-07-27

PANKAJ BHANDARI, SAMEER JAIN

body2022
JUDGMENT Sameer Jain, J. - Present petition is arising against the orders dated 24.09.2021 and 29.10.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, 'the CAT') in Original Application No. 73/2020. By way of said orders, the petitioner's candidature for the post of Dietician was rejected on the ground of being over age. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned CAT has wrongly placed reliance upon para B(b) of the advertisement which is not applicable in the instant case. Rather, the case is covered by para B(a) of the advertisement, which is in consonance with the ESIC Recruitment Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter, 'the Regulations'). It is further submitted that the office memorandum, relied upon by the respondents cannot be allowed to operate contrary to the statutory provisions. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner falls within the category of 'Government Servant', as specified in the advertisement and is entitled for age relaxation upto 37 years in terms of the Regulations as well as in terms of the conditions of advertisement. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the original application as well as review application were rejected by the learned CAT on 24.09.2021 and 29.10.2021 respectively, after considering the Regulations issued by the concerned Department on account of the applicant being over-age and not fulfilling the conditions for relaxation of age. He has further submitted that on verification of petitioner's documents, it was observed that the petitioner was engaged on the post of Dietitian on "urgent temporary basis" in SMS Medical College and therefore she does not qualify for the selection, as for appointment of Group-C post in direct recruitment, three years continuous service with Government is mandatory. The petitioner admittedly was lacking the same and therefore her candidature was not considered. 4. We have heard both the sides and have considered the record. 5. On perusal of the advertisement, it is observed that closing date for filing the application was 21.01.2019 and under Para B Eligibilty, at serial No. 10, for Post of Dietician, the age criteria (as per existing Recruitment Regulations) was "not exceeding 32 years" but the same was relaxed up to 37 years in case of 'Government Servant' and 'Employees of ESI Corporation'. 6. 6. The petitioner, in the instant case, had applied for the said post and she was shortlisted and selected for verification of documents (vide Annexure-8), after she was declared successful in the examinations which were held on 26.02.2019 and 27.02.2019. According to Annexure-7 (Region wise Merit list), she even stood at serial No. 1 for the post of Dietician. She applied for relaxation of age as she was a Government Servant and was hardly 6-7 months over the age of 32 years. After her due selection, on 21.01.2020, relying upon office memorandum dated 27.03.2012- wherein it was written that benefit of age relaxation for Department Candidate/Government Employee will be available only to those candidates who have rendered at least three years continuous service under Government- her appointment was cancelled and set aside on the ground of being over the prescribed age, as she was not given benefit of age relaxation. 7. On consideration of the office memorandum dated 27.03.2012, it is analyzed that it is merely a consolidated order regarding relaxation in upper age limit allowed to various ategories of Government servants. Department has relied upon Clause 12 of the office memorandum qua the appointment to Group 'C' posts wherein age relaxation enumerated is up to 40 years of age and 45 years of age for SC/ST. 8. Reliance placed by the respondents to the office memorandum is erroneous as in the case in hand, as per the advertisement, there was no condition of continuous service of three years. The age relaxation in the given case, as per the advertisement, was only up to age of 37 years and not 40 years. The rejection of petitioner's candidature on account of reliance placed upon the office memorandum and requirement of three years of continuous service is beyond the advertisement conditions, beyond the Regulations and not applicable upon the petitioner as she had not applied for relaxation up to the age of 40 years. 9. Learned CAT has therefore went dehors the advertisement and has wrongly relied upon the office memorandum. Therefore, the order of CAT dated 24.09.2021 and the review order dated 29.10.2021, are set aside. As a result, the candidature of petitioner is to be considered on the basis of her merit in the selection list for the post of Dietician and if selected, all consequential benefits, as per the Recruitment Rules, be awarded to her. 10. Therefore, the order of CAT dated 24.09.2021 and the review order dated 29.10.2021, are set aside. As a result, the candidature of petitioner is to be considered on the basis of her merit in the selection list for the post of Dietician and if selected, all consequential benefits, as per the Recruitment Rules, be awarded to her. 10. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed.