2007 Supreme(SC) 1647

2008(8) Supreme 565
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Aftab Alam, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Shri Ramesh Singh Rajput — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5953 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 830 of 2006)
Decided on : 14-12-2007

Headnote:Service law – Advertisement inviting applications for post of cook by appellant2 – Upper Age limit mentioned 25 years – Selection of respondent on his furnishing his date of birth as 17-03-1978 – However non appointment of Respondent even though selected since School records showed his date of birth as 17-3-1978 – Application there against by respondent on plea that since Central civil services and civil posts (Upper age limits for Direct recruitment) rules, 1988 had increased upper age limit for recruitment by method of Direct Open Competition Examination to Central Civil services and Civil posts specified in relevant service\recuitment rules, by two years, he was entitled to benefit of said increase and if years was added, he would fulfil age recruitment even if date of birth was taken as 17-03-1977 – Tribunal allowed application holding that rules applied to post for cook for which Respondent had applied and applicant was entitled to relaxation by two years – Writ petition – Dismissed – Appeal - From record it appeared that authority did not issue any appointment order to respondent on ground that he gave a false date of birth - Stand of respondent before CAT was that it appeared from application filed before it was that date of birth of respondent was 17.3.1978 - In an annexure he claimed it to be 17.3.1978 - Appellants knew about said date and, hence held him to be qualified candidate and, therefore, he was interviewed by Selection Committee and found suitable - Having proceeded in that manner it was not open to appellants to deny appointment - It appeared that CAT itself accepted that question of correcting date of birth was not within domain of appellants and it was open to respondent to move appropriate authority in that regard - Having said so, CAT held that there was scope for relaxation - There were no pleadings in that regard - As a matter of fact, there was no reference even to relaxation aspect in application before CAT - For First time such stand was taken during hearing before the CAT - High Court unfortunately did not consider this Aspect - Hence, orders of CAT and High Court held unsustainable and quashed – Appeal allowed. (Paras 11 to 14)

       Facts of the case :

       An Advertisement was published herein in the instant case inviting applications for post of cook by appellant 2. Upper Age limit was mentioned as 25 years. Respondent was selected on his furnishing his date of birth as 17-03-1978. However, Respondent was not appointed even though selected since School records showed his date of birth as 17-3-1978. An Application there against was filed by respondent on plea that since Central civil services and civil posts (Upper age limits for Direct recruitment) rules, 1988 had increased upper age limit for recruitment by method of Direct Open Competition Examination to Central Civil services and Civil posts specified in relevant service\recuitment rules, by two years, he was entitled to benefit of said increase and if years was added, he would fulfil age recruitment even, if date of birth was taken as 17-03-1977. Tribunal allowed application holding that rules applied to post for cook for which Respondent had applied and applicant was entitled to relaxation by two years. Writ petition thereagainst was dismissed.

       Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that from record it appeared that authority did not issue any appointment order to respondent on ground that he gave a false date of birth. Stand of respondent before CAT was that it appeared from application filed before it was that date of birth of respondent was 17.3.1978. In an annexure he claimed it to be 17.3.1978. Appellants knew about said date and, hence held him to be qualified candidate and, therefore, he was interviewed by Selection Committee and found suitable. Having proceeded in that manner it was not open to appellants to deny appointment. It appeared that CAT itself accepted that question of correcting date of birth was not within domain of appellants and it was open to respondent to move appropriate authority in that regard. Having said so, CAT held that there was scope for relaxation. There were no pleadings in that regard. As a matter of fact, there was no reference even to relaxation aspect in application before CAT. For First time such stand was taken during hearing before the CAT. High Court unfortunately did not consider this Aspect. Hence, orders of CAT and High Court held unsustainable and quashed. Appeal allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed partly.