W.P.(C) No.1641/2011Page 1 of 8

$

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 15^th November, 2011

+

W.P.(C) 1641/2011

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES

SELECTION BOARD & ANR

..... Petitioners

Through:

Ms. Zubeda Begum & Ms. Sana

Ansari, Adv.

Versus

PREETI RATHI & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. M. Rais Farooqui & Mr.

Sargaraz Khan, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1.Whether reporters of Local papers may

yes

be allowed to see the judgment?

2.To be referred to the reporter or not?

yes

3.Whether the judgment should be reported

yes

in the Digest?

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

1. The petition impugns the order dated 20^th August, 2010 of the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi allowing

the Original Application No.714/2009 filed by the respondents and

2011:DHC:5741-DB

W.P.(C) No.1641/2011Page 2 of 8

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 4^th 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 13^th July, 2007 the recruitment

rules were amended and as per which the age limit was reduced to 27

2011:DHC:5741-DB

W.P.(C) No.1641/2011Page 3 of 8

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 4^th 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 20^th 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. Un