IMPORTANT POINT
Recruitments to comply with rules are required to be complied with fairly and reasonably.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Appointment, Promotion, Seniority) Rules, 1971—Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas—Article 45—Posts of Lower Division Clerk—Age limit prescribed under the recruitment rules was relaxable—Respondents who applied for post were overaged but were permitted to appear at examination—Higher Authorities of school were moved for cancellation of recruitment—Respondents filed OA before CAT for a direction to relax age of candidates—Tribunal allowed application—High Court did not interfere in writ—Appeal—Relaxation of age permitted under rules was for the purpose specified—Appointing authority were required to apply their mind while exercising discretion to relax age limit—Respondents did not come within purview of exception contained in Rule, Tribunal and High Court committed manifest error in issuing direction—Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
Held : Respondents are not members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Age limit is prescribed for appointment to the general category of employees. The upper age limit for appointment to the post of LDC is 25 years. The advertisement also says so. The Rules, as noticed hereinbefore, are in two parts. The first part talks about the age limit. The second part provides for relaxation. Such relaxation can be granted for the purpose specified, i.e., in favour of those who answered the descriptions stated therein. Relaxation of age limit even in relation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates or the Retrenched Central Government employees, including the defence personnel, is, however, not automatic. The appointing authorities are required to apply their mind while exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to relax the age limits. Discretion of the authorities is required to be exercised only for deserving candidates and upon recommendations of the Appointing Committee/Selection Committee. The requirements to comply with the rules, it is trite, were required to be complied with fairly and reasonably. They were bound by the rules. The discretionary jurisdiction could be exercised for relaxation of age provided for in the rules and within the four corners thereof. As Respondents do not come within the purview of the exception contained in Article 45 of the Education Code, in our opinion, the Tribunal and consequently, the High Court committed a manifest error in issuing the aforementioned directions. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

Appellant before us is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It runs a chain of schools known as Kendriya Vidyalayas all over the country. An advertisement was issued in respect of eight vacancies which arose in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Silchar region. Respondent applied for recruitment to the said post pursuant to or in furtherance of the said advertisement. Written and typing tests were held. As per Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Appointment, Promotion, Seniority) Rules, 1971 (for short, the Rules), the age limit prescribed therefor was 18-25 years as on 30.6.1994, which was, however, relaxable. Respondents are said to be near relatives of the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Regional Office, Silchar. The candidates who were over-aged were also permitted to appear at the examination in contravention of the Rules. Certain irregularities were also committed in the matter of conducting typing test. Higher authorities of the school were moved for cancellation of the recruitment of the LDCs.

2. An Original Application was filed by Respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, praying for a direction upon Appellants to relax the age of the candidates. By an order dated 15.3.2001, the Tribunal directed Appellants to do so. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, a writ petition was filed by Appellants before the Gauhati High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court directed :

"In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, we hold that direction, as issued by the Tribunal, could not have been given for appointment of the private respondents, until and unless the Appointing Authority exercises the power of relaxation of age limit. In view of the above, we direct the Appointing Authority to consider the case of respondents herein, for relaxation of the age limit within a period of 3 (three) months from the placement of a certified copy of this order before the Appointing Authority, and on relaxation of the age limit, include their names in the select list and thereafter issue appointment orders to them, in accordance with law on the basis of the merit of the candidate."

3. It is not in dispute before us that Respondents were over-aged on the relevant date. The particulars of Respondents, who had filed applications pursuant to the said advertisement, are as under :

Sl.Name Date of Category No.Birth

1.Jagadish Kr. Projapati 02-05-1968OBC

2.Sajal Kr. Roy30-09-1968GEN

3.Dhruba Jyoti Chakraborty10-11-1968GEN

4.Kalyan Jyoti Chakraborty11-11-1968GEN

4. The short question which arises for consideration before us is : Whether, in terms of the extant Rules, age of the general candidates was relaxable?

5. Mr. S. Rajappa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellants would submit that the High Court committed an error in directing consideration of relaxation of age bar in respect of Respondents. The learned counsel would further submit that the regional office committed illegalities in allowing Respondents to appear at the written and typing examination, although they were admittedly over-aged and, thus, were not eligible for appointment.

6. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, would support the judgment.

7. The Tribunal, although, noticed that Respondents crossed the age bar, but opined that keeping in view the fact that the relaxation of age was specifically referred to in the advertisement, they were otherwise eligible therefor. The Tribunal in support of its finding referred to a purported letter dated 29.3.1995 issued by Assistant Commissioner, Administration, KVS to Assistant Commissioner, KVS Silchar, which is in the following terms :

"I am to invite a reference to your office letter No.F.2-16/94-KVS (SR) dated 15.03.1995 and to state that the process of interview/selection may kindly be completed as per the advertisement dated 28th May – 3r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 995

IMPORTANT POINTRecruitments to comply with rules are required to be complied with fairly and reasonably.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Recruitments to comply with rules are required to be complied with fairly and reasonably.