JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, ACJ.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 20th August, 2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi allowing the Original Application No.714/2009 filed by the respondents and whereby the petitioners were directed to declare the result of the examination for the post of Primary Teachers taken by the respondents and to also grant age relaxation to the respondents, as accorded to certain others and to, if successful in the examination, offer appointment to the respondents as Primary Teachers within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

2. The factual matrix leading to the aforesaid decision is as under. The respondents no.1 to 2, in the year 2001 were appointed as Primary Teachers in MCD on contract basis. They had passed the qualifying examination of Elementary Teachers Education (ETE) diploma course of two years of the State Council of Educational Research & Training. The age limit for doing the said course was 17-30 years. As per the then recruitment rules of MCD, the age limit prescribed for employment as Primary Teacher was 32 years for males and 42 years for females.

3. The respondents filed W.P.(C) No.5731-801/2006 inter alia for regularization of their services. Though the said relief was denied to the respondents vide judgment dated 4th May, 2006 but MCD was directed to continue the respondents in employment till regular employees are brought in their place; the respondents were also permitted to participate in regular recruitment process and MCD directed to consider granting age relaxation to the respondents.

4. However vide notification dated 13th July, 2007 the recruitment rules were amended and as per which the age limit was reduced to 27 years for both males and females. The aforesaid amendment was challenged before the High Court of Delhi in Sachin Gupta. v. DSSSB 152 (2008) DLT 378 (DB) and as per which judgment age relaxation was granted to those who qualified the ETE course in the years 2006 to 2008.

5. In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment dated 4th May, 2006, the respondents continued in service and were also allowed to provisionally appear in the examination held in or about the year 2008 for recruitment for the post of Primary Teachers. However, the result of the respondents of the examination so taken by them was withheld/not declared and upon the representations not meeting with any success the OA aforesaid was filed before the Tribunal seeking declaration of result and grant of age relaxation.

6. It is not in dispute that each of the respondents on the date of initially joining the employment of MCD in the year 2001 was within the age limits then prescribed or even as prescribed in the amended Rules.

7. The Tribunal vide order dated 20th August, 2010 impugned in this petition held that since age relaxation had been granted vide judgment in \Sachin Gupta\ (supra) to those who had passed the ETE course in the year 2006-08, the respondents who had passed the said course earlier were being discriminated. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Harminder Kaur v. Union of India 2009 (7) SCALE 204 and the decision of the Tribunal in OA No.498/2010 titled Suman Lata Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi decided on 8th July, 2010 and decision of the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 228/2010 titled Sharmila v. DSSSB decided on 14th January, 2010. Mention was also made of O.A. No.2983/2009 titled Parul Dhingra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi decided on 18th March, 2010.

8. We may notice that against the decision of the Tribunal in \Parul Dhingra\ (supra) a writ petition is stated to be pending in this Court and in which interim relief is informed to have been granted. The same does not preclude us from proceeding to decide this petition.

9. In the aforesaid backdrop, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are not entitled to age relaxation. According to her, as per t