*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: August 25, 2023

1

+

W.P.(C) 11008/2023, CM APPL. 42661/2023

DSSSB

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mrs.

Avnish

Ahlawat,

Standing

Counsel with Ms. Tania Ahlawat,

Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Palak

Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik,

Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish

Sehrawat, Advocates.

versus

RAVI KUMAR AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Pragnya Routray, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

V. KAMESWAR RAO (Oral)

CM APPL. 42662/2023

1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 11008/2023 & CM APPL. 42661/2023

3.

The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated May 08, 2023

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

in O.A. 4318/2017, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. in favour of

respondent no. 1 herein by stating in paragraphs 7 & 8 as under:-

Digitally Signed

By:DINESH CHANDRA

Signing Date:01.09.2023

16:58:38

Signature Not Verified

copy of this order.”

4.

Some of the relevant facts are that the respondent No.1 had

participated in the selection process conducted by the DSSSB i.e. petitioner

herein, for the post of Assistant Malaria Inspector. The respondent No. 1

who belongs to the SC category, secured 83.5 marks and the cutoff for his

category was 60 marks. However, post the uploading of the relevant

documents, the candidature of the respondent No. 1 was rejected by the

petitioner on the ground of he being overaged for the concerned post, by way

of Rejection Notice dated July 06, 2017.

5.

In the O.A. filed by the respondent No. 1, the case set up by him was

that his candidature for Assistant Malaria Inspector was rejected on the

ground that he was found to be of overaged. It was also his case that he is

entitled to age relaxation as per Column 6 at Sr. No. 6 of the advertisement

published by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the concerned

advertisement, wherein the stipulation qua the age relaxation is prescribed,

has been reproduced as under:

Digitally Signed

By:DINESH CHANDRA

Signing Date:01.09.2023

16:58:38

Signature Not Verified

6.

The respondent No.1 has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup and Ors.,

(2008) 11 SCC 10. He had also relied upon the judgment of the coordinate

bench of this Court in Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr.

v. Preeti Rathi & Ors., W.P.(C) 1641/2011, decided on November 15, 2011.

Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Principal Bench of Tribunal

in Sujeet Kumar and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.,

O.A. No. 3989/2011, decided on May 10, 2012. The respondent no. 1 had

primarily relied upon the aforesaid judgment to contend that he is entitled to

age relaxation.

7.

On the other hand, the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was

that no age relaxation could be given to the respondent no. 1 as the same can

be availed by a government employee or regular departmental candidates

only.

8.

The paragraph 7 of the judgment in O.A. No. 1012/2019, decided on

February 22, 2023, which has been relied upon by the Tribunal in the

impugned order dated May 08, 2023, while allowing the O.A., is reproduced

Digitally Signed

By:DINESH CHANDRA

Signing Date:01.09.2023

16:58:38

Signature Not Verified

as under:

“7. As already discussed hereinabove in Dr. Jamuna Kurup

facts and circumstances of the present case.”

9.

In other words, the Tribunal has relied upon the judgments in Dr.

Jamuna Kurup & Ors. (supra)and Preeti Rathi & Ors. (supra), while

allowing the O.A. The relevant directions passed by the Tribunal in

paragraph 7 & 8, have already been reproduced in paragraph 3 (above) of

this order.

10.

As far as this writ petition is concerned, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh,

learned counsel appe