Contract employees qualify as internal candidates for age relaxation under society staff rules if granted by competent authority; termination without proper inquiry violates natural justice.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):

Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :

“(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.1.2015 passed by Resp. no. 2. (Annexure-1).

(ii) To issue a further writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the applicant as Office Assistant Grade-III and continue to pay his salary and other consequential benefits, as if the order dt. 30.1.2015 passed by Resp. no. 2 has not been passed.

(iii) To grant any other and further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award cost of the petition in favour of applicant.”

3. The brief facts as narrated by the applicant are that the Centre for Electronic Design and Technology of India (CEDTI) was originally a society under the Government of India, which later merged into the Department of Information Technology and then into the Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses (DOEACC), an autonomous society, Vide resolution dated 10.10.2011, DOEACC was renamed National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT), adopting the same rules, regulations, and staff. While working as a Junior Engineer at DOEACC Patna, the applicant applied for the post of Office Assistant Grade-III and, being an internal candidate, was granted age relaxation in terms of Staff Rules which had no age limit for internal candidates. The applicant appeared in the written test and interview and was selected on 01.07.2010 for the Gorakhpur Centre. However, his selection was challenged by Shri Harish Chandra before the Tribunal in OA No.86 of 2011 on the ground that the applicant was over age and not entitled to get age relaxation. It is submitted that initially the respondents defended the applicant’s selection stating that age relaxation was granted under the rules but later on the Director of the Institute has changed it then the respondents has taken a somersault to the effect that the applicant has been granted age relaxation erroneously and he is not entitled for the same. An enquiry was conducted against the applicant, which concluded that the age relaxation granted to him was erroneous. Although the enquiry committee had recommended that action should be taken only after the case pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal was decided but the respondents terminated the applicant’s services on 30.01.2015. The applicant contends that this action is illegal because no charge sheet was issued to him and no proper departmental enquiry was conducted before terminating his services. Therefore, the termination order dated 30.01.2015 is arbitrary, violates the principles of natural justice, and is also contrary to the protection provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this OA.

4. The respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant by filing a counter affidavit and have submitted that the applicant was appointed as Junior Engineer at DOEACC, Patna Regional Centre of Gorakhpur on contract basis on purely on consolidated salary of Rs.7000/- per month for the period of one year w.e.f. 01.09.2008. It is submitted that the applicant was allowed age relaxation on his