Contractual employees are entitled to age relaxation under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao (Oral)

CM APPL. 42662/2023

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 11008/2023 & CM APPL. 42661/2023

3. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated May 08, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. 4318/2017, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. in favour of respondent no. 1 herein by stating in paragraphs 7 & 8 as under:

"7. In view of above, we have no doubt in our minds that the issue and the facts of the present case are identical and same to the one in O.A. No. 1012/2019 irrespective of the Post Code. Therefore, we have no reason to take a divergent view. Accordingly, this O.A. is also allowed.

8. In view of the above, the present OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.07.2017 is quashed and set aside. We hereby direct the respondents to proceed with an offer of appointment to the applicant, if otherwise found eligible, except for the issues raised above. The respondents are also directed to grant consequential reliefs to the applicant on notional basis. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

4. Some of the relevant facts are that the respondent No.1 had participated in the selection process conducted by the DSSSB i.e. petitioner herein, for the post of Assistant Malaria Inspector. The respondent No. 1 who belongs to the SC category, secured 83.5 marks and the cutoff for his category was 60 marks. However, post the uploading of the relevant documents, the candidature of the respondent No. 1 was rejected by the petitioner on the ground of he being overaged for the concerned post, by way of Rejection Notice dated July 06, 2017.

5. In the O.A. filed by the respondent No. 1, the case set up by him was that his candidature for Assistant Malaria Inspector was rejected on the ground that he was found to be of overaged. It was also his case that he is entitled to age relaxation as per Column 6 at Sr. No. 6 of the advertisement published by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the concerned advertisement, wherein the stipulation qua the age relaxation is prescribed, has been reproduced as under:

6. The respondent No.1 has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup and Ors., (2008) 11 SCC 10. He had also relied upon the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. v. Preeti Rathi & Ors., W.P.(C) 1641/2011, decided on November 15, 2011. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Principal Bench of Tribunal in Sujeet Kumar and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., O.A. No. 3989/2011, decided on May 10, 2012. The respondent no. 1 had primarily relied upon the aforesaid judgment to contend that he is entitled to age relaxation.

7. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that no age relaxation could be given to the respondent no. 1 as the same can be availed by a government employee or regular departmental candidates only.

8. The paragraph 7 of the judgment in O.A. No. 1012/2019,