ORDER :

Hemant Gupta, J.

Leave granted.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Delhi High Court on 20.2.2019 affirming the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi on 5.9.2018 whereby an original application (OA) filed by the respondent herein was allowed, holding that she was entitled to age relaxation of five years for appointment to the post of PGT (English) Female.

2. The respondent is serving as Teacher (Primary) in South Delhi Municipal Corporation,¹[For short, the ‘Corporation’] since 7.4.2006. The appellant invited applications for various posts including the post of PGT (English) Female, Post Code No.133/2012, vide Advertisement No.2/2012. The age limit as per the advertisement in respect of the post for which the respondent was an applicant reads thus:

“Age Limit: Below 36 years & relaxable in case of Govt. Servant and departmental candidates upto 05 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government. This post is identified as suitable for OH/VH persons only as per the Requisition of the User Department.”

3. The respondent’s date of birth is 10.2.1976 and on the closing date of the receipt of the applications i.e. 15.6.2012, she was more than 36 years of age. The learned Tribunal allowed the OA filed by the respondent holding that she was entitled to age relaxation as the Corporation falls under the ambit of Government Organisation. It is the said order which was affirmed by the High Court.

4. It is admitted by Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent, that the reproduction by the High Court from the advertisement as mentioned in para 4 is a condition in respect of a subsequent selection process initiated vide advertisement in the year 2016.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that as per the conditions of advertisement, the age could be relaxed in case of Government servants and departmental candidates. It is argued that the respondent is not a government servant nor a departmental candidate, therefore, the benefit of age relaxation is not permissible. It is also argued that the Circular of the Government of India dated 27.3.2012 in respect of relaxation of upper age limit allowed to various categories of various Government servants are applicable only to Central Government civilian employees holding civil posts and are not applicable to the personnel working in the autonomous/statutory bodies, public sector undertakings etc. which are governed by regulations/statutes issued by the concerned administrative Ministries/Departments. The relevant clause reads as under:

“3. These instructions are applicable only to Central Government Civilian Employees holding Civil posts and are not applicable to personnel working in autonomous/statutory bodies, public sector undertakings etc. which are governed by regulations/statute issued by the concerned administrative Ministries/Departments. In certain cases the benefit of age relaxation, was allowed to a specified category of personnel for a limited period. The validity of relaxation in such cases will be for the period specified in the original instructions or as amended from time to time.

In case of recruitment through the UPSC and the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), the crucial date for determining the age-limit shall be as advertised by UPSC/SSC. The crucial date for determining age for competitive examination held by UPSC/SSC is fixed as per the instructions in this Department’s O.M. No. 42013/1/79-Estt.(D) dated 4.12.1979 and O.M. No. AB. 14017/70/87-Esst. (RR) dated 14.07.1988.”

6. It is also argued that in terms of judgment of this Court in Jai Prakash Wadhwa & Ors. v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. & Anr., (1997) 11 SCC 174, Assistant Teachers in the Municipal Corporations are not government servants holding a post in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity. In the aforesaid case, the appellants were employed as Assistant Teachers in the schools run by the Municip