W.P. No.9816/2015

Page 1 of 6

$~49.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 9816/2015

%

Judgment dated 16^th October, 2015

ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF

MEDICAL SCIENCES

..... Petitioner

Through :

Mr.R.K. Gupta, Adv.

versus

RUCHIKA MADAN

..... Respondent

Through :

Mr.C. Hari Shankar, Sr. Adv. with

Mr.Jagdish N., Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

CAV. 1102/2015

1.

Mr.C. Hari Shankar, learned senior counsel, on instructions from

Mr.Jagidsh, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of the respondent.

2.

Accordingly, caveat petition stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 23673/2015

3.

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

4.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 9816/2015

5.

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 23.7.2015 passed by

Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟)

whereby the Original Application being No.748/2015 was allowed by the

Tribunal.

6.

Rule DB. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present writ petition

2015:DHC:8757-DB

W.P. No.9816/2015

Page 2 of 6

is set down for final hearing and disposal.

7.

As per the petition, the respondent was working as a Junior

Physiotherapist with the petitioner/AIIMS on contract basis. Pursuant to

the advertisement dated 22.12.2013 published by the petitioner for

recruitment to various posts in Group „B‟ and Group „C‟ posts, including

the post of Junior Physiotherapist/Occupational Therapist, the respondent

made

an application for

recruitment to

the

post of

Junior

Physiotherapist/Occupational Physiotherapist. In one of the columns of

the application form, the respondent portrayed herself to be an employee

of AIIMS. The respondent was called for an interview and declared

successful but subsequently she was declined employment as she was

overage.

8.

Reliance was placed before the Tribunal on para 9 of the “General

Conditions”, according to which, since the respondent was a contract

employee, she cannot fall in the definition of an employee, and, thus, not

entitled to age relaxation, as relaxation upto 40 years of age is applicable

only to a permanent employee of AIIMS. Para 9 reads as under:

“9.

9.

We may notice that the Tribunal has, while considering the rival

submissions, decided the O.A. in favour of the respondent based on a

decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union

Public Service Commission v. Dr.Jamuna Kurup and Others, reported at

2015:DHC:8757-DB

W.P. No.9816/2015

Page 3 of 6

(2008) 11 SCC 10.

10.Mr.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the aforesaid

judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case and in fact the

judgment rendered in the case of UPSC V. Girish Jayanti lal Vaghela,

reported at (2006) 2 SCC 482 would apply. Counsel further submits that

in the case of Girish Jayanti lal Vaghela (supra) it was held that the

persons working on short-term contract basis cannot claim the status of a

Government employee and, thus, by the same analogy the respondent

cannot be given benefit of age relaxation.

11.Mr.Shankar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent,

submits that the present case is fully covered in fact and in law by the

subsequent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case

of Dr.Jamuna Kurup (supra), which is a judgment rendered by a Bench

of Three Judges.

12.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival

submissions. We are unable to accept the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the case of Girish Jayanti lal

Vaghela (supra) was discussed by the Three Judges Bench of the

Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr.Jamuna Kurup (supra) in para

16, which reads as under: