By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

The instant Original Application has been filed by the

applicant seeking the following relief(s):-

“8.1 That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be

pleased to allow this original application set-aside the

impugned rejection notice No.350 dated 23.2.2019 qua in

respect of applicant with all consequential benefits.

8.2 That this Honourable Tribunal may graciously be

pleased to pass an order thereby directing the

respondents to given the age relaxation in accordance

with his length of service and wightage in experience in

selection process for the recruitment of Assistant Publi

helath Inspector (APHI)/Vaccinator to the applicant

against Advertisement No. 01/2014.

8.3 That this Honourable Tribuanl may graciously be

pleased to grant appropriate age relaxation to the

applicant towards Post Code No. 22/14; post of Assistant

Public Health Inspector (APHI)/ Vaccinator.

8.4 That any other or further relief which this Hon’ble

Tribunal may be deem fit and proper under the

circumstances of the case may also be grantd in favour

of the applicant.

8.5 That the cost of the proceedings may also be

awarded in the favour of the applicant.”

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is

aggrieved by the Rejection Notice No. 350 dated 23.02.2019,

whereby his candidature for the post of Assistant Public Health

Inspector/Vacinator (Post Code-22/14) has been rejected on the

grounds of over age. He submits that the applicant is entitled to

age relaxation as per column 6 of the Recruitment Rules dated

14.08.2014 of aforesaid posts framed by the respondents under

3

Article 309 of Constitution of India wherein they decided that

“(Relaxable for Government Servants and employees of

Municipal Corporation of Delhi upto 40 years in accordance with

the order and instruction of the Government)”. He further draws

our attention to Annexure A-8, which is a certificate dated

03.05.2017 vide which it has been stated that Mr. Nikhlesh

Kumar, the applicant herein, is continuously working in Public

Health Department, Civil Lines zone as a Assistant Public Health

Inspector (APHI) on Contract Basis since 27.09.2010 till date

and the same has been issued by the Dy. Health Officer, Civil

Line Zone, North Delhi Municipal Corporation.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant further relies upon the

following case laws:-

(i) The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on

21.02.2008 in Union Public Service Commission Vs. Dr.

Jamuna Kurup and Others, reported in (2008) 11 Supreme

Court Cases 10. The relevant paragraphs of the same read as

under:-

“9. The UPSC contended that the term 'age is relaxable

for employees of Municipal Corporation of Delhi' in the

advertisement dated 13.3.2004, is intended to refer only

to regular and permanent employees of MCD. It was

also contended that being short term contract

employees, the respondents cannot claim to be

'employees of MCD'. For this purpose reliance was

placed on the decision of this Court in UPSC vs. Girija

Jayantilal Vaghela 2006 (2) SCC 482, wherein this

Court held that persons working on short term contract

basis cannot claim the status of Government Servants.

4

UPSC submitted that on a similar interpretation,

'employees

of

MCD'

will

not

include

contract

employees.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents

submitted that the decision in Vaghela did not apply to

the respondents as they did not claim to be government

servants. He submitted that the respondents claimed

age relaxation as employees of MCD which was

specifically provided in the advertisement. We have

already noticed that the UPSC advertisement (No. SPL-

03-2004) clearly specified that the age limit of 35 years

was relaxable for employees of Municipal Corporation

of Delhi, up to five years. Therefore, the only question

that arises for consideration is whether the word

'employees of MCD' should be construed as referring

only to permanent or regular employees of MCD as

contended by UPSC or to