Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Amant Kumar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Commissioner of Police & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 14022 of 2023 and W.P.(C) 14024 of 2023
Decided On : 07-11-2023
Age Relaxation - Recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police - Rules 9 & 30 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 - The judgment discusses the entitlement of the petitioners to age relaxation for appearing in the examination for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police. The court analyzes the provisions of Rules 9 and 30 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and their applicability to the petitioners' case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing their prayers for interim relief to appear in the examination for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police. The petitioners argued that the failure to conduct the recruitment drive in previous years due to COVID-19 and other reasons resulted in them becoming over-aged and ineligible to participate in the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to age relaxation as a one-time measure and that no interim order could be granted in their favor. The court noted that the petitioners did not provide details about their participation in previous examinations and failed to demonstrate that they were deprived of the opportunity to apply within the age limit. The court also highlighted that the petitioners' request for age relaxation would create a separate category of applicants with vested rights, potentially discriminating against other potential candidates.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to age relaxation for appearing in the examination for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police, considering the failure to conduct the recruitment drive in previous years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the COVID-19 reason was not applicable to the petitioners and that their request for age relaxation as a one-time measure did not have merit. The court also highlighted that the petitioners' failure to provide relevant details about their participation in previous examinations and the potential discrimination against other candidates weighed against granting the requested relief.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the order of the Tribunal did not require interference and that the petitions were without merit.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J.(Oral) - The captioned writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners impugning an order dated September 26, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', hereinafter) in the Original Applications (`OA', for short) 2834/2023, 2904/2023 and 2850/2023 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the prayers of the applicants before it seeking interim relief to appear in the examination for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police.
2. At the outset, we may narrate the brief facts as pleaded by the petitioners leading up to the present petitions. The respondent No.1 issued an advertisement on August 1, 2020 for filling up of 5846 vacancies to the post of Constable (Executive). Despite the legal mandate to conduct the said exam twice a year, no such exam has been conducted in 2021, 2022 though advertisement is issued on September 01, 2023 rendering the petitioners and many others over-aged.
3. The respondent No. 4 issued a tentative calendar of examinations for the year 2021-2022 for recruitment of Constable (Executive) Male/Female, Delhi Police Examination to be conducted through advertisement to be issued on January 9, 2023 with a closing date of February 12, 2023 and the examination to be do conducted in May, 2023. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 issued another tentative calendar of examinations for the year 2022-2023 to be carried out through advertisement to be issued on March 2, 2023 with the exam to be conducted in April-May, 2023. The case of the petitioners is that have the respondents carried out the recruitment to the said post, the petitioners would not have become over-aged and ineligible to participate in the selection process.
4. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 through its tentative calendar of examinations for the year 2023-2024 dated December 30, 2022 decided that the recruitment of Constable (Executive) will be conducted by the Delhi Police.
5. It is only on September 1, 2023, i.e., after a period of about 3 years of the last advertisement that the present advertisement for filling up vacancies to the said post was issued. Further, the age limit of candidates as described for the post of Constable (Executive), Delhi Police is from 18-25 years as on July 1, 2023, i.e., the candidate should not have been born before July 2, 1998 and after July 1, 2005. But, since no recruitment was conducted over the three years, the petitioners have crossed the maximum prescribed age limit fixed by the respondents. Though the petitioners otherwise fulfill all the other eligibility criteria for appearing in the examination, they are not able to fill the online application for the said examination on account of the above fact.
6. Mr. Anurag Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the three petitions would state that despite the fact that there were thousands of vacancies for the post of Constable (Executive) in the years 2021-2022, the respondents failed to conduct the recruitment drive to the said post, possibly on account of practical difficulties, logistical problems due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Had the examination been conducted between 2021 & 2022, the petitioners could have been below the prescribed age limit and as such could have appeared in the said examination.
7. His contention is that the respondents have arbitrarily failed to post the said vacancies in the National Career Service Portal in 2021 and 2022, though the Department of Personnel & Training (`DoPT', for short) vide its Office Memoranda dated June 13, 2016, June 23,2016, November 2, 2016 and December 23, 2016 had made it mandatory for all government departments/organizations to pos the vacancies on the portal. Reliance is also placed on an Office Memorandum dated January 21, 2020, issued by the DoPT wherein, all the Ministries/Departments were directed to take advance action for reporting vacancy position with respect to direct recruitment posts to the conce
The Government has power to grant relaxation in upper age limit on its own motion or upon getting intimation from any genuine or bona fide source can grant such relaxation subject to the condition th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that petitioners cannot claim age relaxation based on alleged promises or inaction of the Government, and the court emphasized that the action of t....
The court affirmed that exceptional circumstances may necessitate a one-time relaxation of recruitment age limits to ensure fairness, particularly due to delays caused by the pandemic.
One-time relaxation of age limit for recruitment is justified in light of extraordinary circumstances caused by COVID-19, reaffirming judicial intervention to ensure fairness.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State's decision in fixing the cut-off date for maximum age in accordance with the rules and the date of advertisement cannot be interfere....
The court directed the Government to consider age relaxation for candidates due to delays and irregularities in the recruitment process, affirming the need for fairness and transparency in public exa....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
