Reserved category candidates who avail age relaxation are generally barred from competing for unreserved posts if the recruitment advertisement contains an express prohibition. However, additional age relaxation for specific vocational training may be granted if supported by judicial precedent and the terms of the recruitment process.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

Heard Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. T. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the IOCL, Mr. M.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 and Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.

2. The grievance raised in this writ petition is with regard to the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by not granting him the relaxation of an additional one year to which the petitioner claims to be entitled to, on the basis of the Boiler Apprenticeship Certificate available with him, over and above the relaxation granted to the petitioner, on the ground of him belonging to an OBC (non-creamy layer) category.

3. The petitioner had obtained his Bachelor of Science degree in the year 2015 and had thereafter completed his 24 months Apprenticeship Training as a Trade Apprentice (Boiler Attendant) under the Apprenticeship Act at the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, from 20.06.2017 to 19.06.2019. The petitioner also had a valid certificate at the relevant point of time declaring him to belong to a community which was recognized as a backward class under the relevant notifications of the Government of India, and it was also certified that he did not belong to the creamy layer persons/sections as mentioned in column three of the relevant notification of the DOPT OM dated 08.09.1993 or the subsequent notifications.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the facts of the case are similar to the facts of WP(C) No. 1373/2022 and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to a similar relief.

5. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, has submitted that the respondent No. 5 has already been terminated from services and such termination is under challenge in a separate writ petition, which is pending adjudication before this Court.

6. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that, as per the provisions of Clause J (13), the petitioner, who had availed the concession of age being an OBC (NCL) candidate, could be considered only against the post reserved for such candidates, irrespective of his position in the select list. The learned senior counsel has submitted that, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to be considered against the posts to which the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 had been appointed does not deserve to be entertained by this Court, since the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 are candidates belonging to the unreserved category and have been appointed in that capacity.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent have also drawn the attention of this Court to Clause E (2) of the advertisement, according to which the SC/ST/OBC candidates can be considered under the general standard of merit against unreserved posts, provided they did not avail the relaxation in age qualification, etc.

8. The Apex Court in Deepa E.V. vs Union of India , reported in (2017) 12 SCC 680, has held as follows:

“7. On a combined reading of Rule 9 of the Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and also the proceedings dated 1.7.1998, we find that there is an express bar for the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC who have availed relaxation for being considered for General Category candidates.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2010)