IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to essential criteria for candidature while also considering past practices for relaxation of age criteria.

JUDGMENT :

This instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners assailing the Judgement and Order dated the 17th day of January 2022 passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench in the writ petition being WPA 15068 of 2021.

2. The petitioners to the writ petition are the appellants in the instant appeal in the same sequence.

3. The prayer before the Hon’ble Single Bench was a direction commanding the respondent authorities to cancel or withdraw the Memo. dated 03-08-2019, declaring the petitioners barred on the ground of age and further commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection process for appointment as Assistant Cooks in the Indian Statistical Institute (hereinafter referred to as ISI).

4. By the impugned Judgement and Order, the Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased not to accede to the prayer of the writ petitioners.

5. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners has submitted that the ISI advertised in the newspaper for the recruitment to the posts of Cooks and Assistant Cooks on contractual basis and they had applied for the said post. He has further submitted that the respondent authorities, i.e. the ISI, after scrutinizing and being satisfied with all the criteria as per the advertisement issued call letters for interview-cum-trade test for the post of Assistant Cook. It has further been submitted that the respondent authorities selected the petitioners for the respective posts and issued appointment letters mentioning that the appointee is offered appointment for temporary position as Assistant Cook on contractual basis for a period of 12 months. It has also been submitted that the said tenure was extended from time to time.

6. The Learned Counsel has further submitted that an advertisement published by the ISI for filling up the posts including Cook ‘A’ was made on 03-08-2019 through which the age limit was 35 years along with higher secondary (10 + 2) or equivalent trade certificate/diploma in cooking from a recognized institute. It has further been submitted that in response to the aforementioned advertisement, the petitioners approached the respondent authority for issuing no objection certificate to which the respondent authority issued no objection certificate and the petitioners submitted all the relevant papers justifying their candidature for the post. It has further been submitted that the announcement of the recruitment process for the post was issued on 16-08-2021 through which instead of allowing the petitioners to participate in the selection process, the petitioners were intimated that the petitioners either do not have the trade certificate or their age does not match.

7. On the aforesaid grounds the applications of the petitioners were rejected. It has further been submitted that the writ petitioners had filed appeals for consideration of their candidature after the list was published in the ISI website and the appeals have not been considered till date. Instead the process of recruitment continued.

8. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the writ petitioners challenged the reasons for non consideration of their candidature. He has further submitted that within the stipulated period objection was raised before the respondent authority. He has also submitted that on earlier occasion a candidate was appointed after having his age relaxed by the authority. Banking on the aforesaid submissions, Learned Counsel prayed for allowing the instant appeal.

9. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ ISI submitted that the advertisement for the said post was issued on the 3rd day of August, 2019. He has further submitted that the appellants/writ petitioners filed their applications but the same have been rejected on several grounds. In respect of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 5 the applications were rejected being beyond age limit while in respect of applicant Nos. 3 and 4 the applications have been rejected on th