SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 3023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Mukesh Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Indo Tibetan Border Police Force & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 8887 of 2023 & CM Appl. 33597 of 2023
Decided On : 24-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ajay Garg, Ms. Tripti Gola & Mr. Arvind Sardana, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Deeptiman Yadav, DC/JAG & Ms. Kamlesh Rani, DC/JAG, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of an annual recruitment process and the specific fitness requirements for the post of Constable (driver) in extreme areas influenced the court's decision not to grant relaxation of the age limit due to the pandemic.

Headnote:

Relaxation of Age Limit - Recruitment to the Post of Constable (driver) - Supreme Court decision - Co-ordinate Bench decision - Age relaxation for pandemic - No relaxation granted - Fitness level requirement for drivers in extreme areas - No annual recruitment process - No ground to interfere with the decision

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners seek relaxation of upper age limit for recruitment to the post of Constable (driver) in Indo-Tibetan Border Force due to pandemic affecting selection process. Respondents argue for no relaxation based on fitness requirements for drivers in extreme areas and absence of annual recruitment process.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no ground to interfere with the decision of the respondents in not granting any relaxation for the period of pandemic and dismissed the petition.

Issues: The main issue was whether relaxation of age limit should be granted for recruitment to the post of Constable (driver) in Indo-Tibetan Border Force due to the pandemic affecting the selection process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rational provided by the respondent that high fitness level requires that the drivers are recruited at a younger age for serving in extreme areas is a plausible rational. It also emphasized that there is no annual recruitment process for the post of Constable (driver) in the ITBP, and therefore, the judgments relied on by the petitioners were not applicable to the present case.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court found no merits in the petition.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to allow relaxation of upper age limit and seek grant of minimum three years age relaxation to all categories for being eligible to appear in examination/selection process for recruitment to the post of Constable (driver) in Indo-Tibetan Border Force issued vide advertisement dated 26.06.2023 and further seek a direction to the respondents to fix a cut- off-date of upper age limit as per vacancy year of 2019, 2020, 2021 & 2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents have issued an advertisement on 26.06.2023 inviting online applications for the post of Constable (driver). Learned counsel submits that no selection process was undertaken on account of pandemic between the period 2019 till subject advertisement and as such the petitioners who have become overage, as per the advertisement, have been deprived of an opportunity to participate in the selection process.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that relaxation of age of minimum three years is liable to be granted to all categories so that an equal opportunity of participation is granted to them. Learned counsel submits that in other appointments, such relaxation of three years has been granted to the candidates on the ground of the pandemic of Covid-19.

4. Learned counsel further relies on decision of Supreme Court in High Court of Delhi Vs. Devina Sharma, (2022) 4 SCC 643 as also the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 28.01.2023 in W.P. (C) 19/2022 titled Sachin & Others Vs. Central Reserve Police Force wherein age relaxation of three years has been granted as a one- time measure.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondents are seeking to appoint drivers and the Units of the respondents are mostly posted on high altitude areas, fitness of a much higher level is required from the drivers. He further submits that the age limit prescribed for the subject advertisement is 21 to 27 for the general category. He submits that in terms of various OMs of the Government and different statutory provisions, relaxation in age has been given to prescribed categories of individual belonging to SCT/ST & OBC, Ex-servicemen and Government Servants.

6. Learned counsel, under instructions, further submits that examination for recruitment of driver is not conducted on an annual basis but it is normally conducted after 3-4 years, depending on availability of sufficient number of vacancies as well as the number of vehicles in the respective Units.

7. He submits that intake of young drivers is necessary as the drivers have to serve in very harsh extreme climate of high altitude areas like Leh-Ladakh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Left Wing Extremism areas etc. and enhancing the upper age by three years in the rank of Constable (driver) is likely to affect the morale, physical alertness, fitness of the individual and would not be in the interest of the organization.

8. No doubt the pandemic was an issue which affected several recruitment processes and some organizations have taken a view of granting extension as a `one-time measure' for the purposes of recruitment. However, there is no decision of the Government making an across the board extension applicable to all recruitment processes.

9. In the instant case, respondents are seeking to appoint Constable (driver) in the respondent force i.e. Indo-Tibetan Border Force. Most of the Units of the said force are stationed for a substantial period of time in high altitude and extreme area where fitness level is prime consideration for all individual posted there.

10. An inter-office note dated 13.07.2023 of the Recruitment Branch of the respondents has been produced and same is taken on record. DIG (Recruitment) has explained the circumstances in which the recruitment process could not take place between 2019 to 2022.

11. It is open to the rec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top