Point of Law: Post of Assistant Teacher (primary) - Claiming benefit of age relaxation - CAT has given a clear and categorical finding while disposing of the O.A that Assistant Teachers (Primary) of Municipal Corporations are at par with Government departments in matters of age relaxation.

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, J.

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11th October, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CAT’] Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 336/2018 whereby the respondent-applicant’s O.A has been allowed and they have been granted benefit of age relaxation and allowed to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher (primary). The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“3. Pursuant to Annexure A-1 Advertisement No.04/17 of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) dated 20.12.2017, the applicants applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in three Municipal Corporations of Delhi. It was indicated in the Advertisement that the age limit prescribed for the said post is 30 years, which is relaxable, as indicated in para-6 of the Advertisement for various categories in the post of Guest/Contract Teachers. It is further stated therein that relaxation in upper age as a onetime measure up to the actual time spent as Guest/Contract Teachers in the Directorate of Education, subject to a maximum of 5 years provided they have worked for at least 120 working days in that particular year. It is further stated that age relaxation should be applicable only for Guest/Contract Teachers, who have worked for the academic years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these applicants satisfy this criterion, except that they have been working in the three Corporations and not under the Directorate of Education. It is well settled that the Corporations are to be treated at par with the Government Department in such matters. We have no doubt in our mind that the age relaxation applicable to Guest/Contract Teachers, as stipulated in the Advertisement, is also ipso facto applicable to these applicants as well. Our view is further fortified by order of this Tribunal in OA No.3044/2010 dated 13.01.2012 (Manju Aggarwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors), wherein it is held as under:-

“We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties in this case. After the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in WP (C) 1641/2011 Preeti Rathi and others case (supra), there need not be any doubt that contractual employees have to be treated as departmental employees and they are entitled for age relaxation for direct recruitment. Therefore, we allow this OA and reject the decision of the respondents that applicant being a contractual employee is not a departmental candidate for the purpose of granting age relaxation. Consequently, the respondents shall consider the applicant as a departmental candidate and grant the age relaxation as available to the departmental candidate. As the applicant has already scored a high position in the merit list, respondents shall declare her result and if found otherwise suitable & eligible, she shall be appointed as Teacher (Primary) in MCD with all consequential benefits except back wages. The aforesaid direction shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

4. In view of the above, we allow this OA and direct the respondents to grant age relaxation to the applicants at par with the Assistant Teacher (Primary) on contact basis of Directorate of Education, GNCTD and, accordingly, process their candidatures for further action.”

3. Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the judgment dated 30th January, 2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of matters wherein the lead matter was Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs. Anita Kataria & Ors. being W.P.(C) No.1445/2019.

4. Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, further submits that the CAT failed to appreciate that the respondents had already availed age relaxation benefits in the requisition sent by MCD for the post Code 16/17 and 01/18 and appeared for the post of Assis