JUDGMENT:

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.

Leave granted. Heard counsel.

2. The Union Public Service Commission (for short UPSC) has filed these appeals against the judgment dated 26.4.2004 of a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in WP (C) Nos. 4787-4823/2004.

3. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (respondent no.38 herein, for short the Corporation or MCD) had sent a requisition to UPSC the appellant herein for recruiting 45 Ayurvedic Vaids (that is, Medical Officers Ayurved). As the process of selection by UPSC was likely to take considerable time the Corporation issued an advertisement dated 18.10.2000 inviting applications for contract appointment (on the basis of a walk-in interview) on a fixed salary of Rs.10,000/- for a period of six months or till such time such posts are filled on regular basis through UPSC, whichever was earlier.

4. It is stated that respondents 1 to 37 (for short respondents) applied for such contractual employment and were appointed in April, 2001. The letters of appointment on contract basis were issued to respondents in terms of the advertisement. As the UPSC selections was delayed, the contract appointment of respondents were renewed for periods of six months each by office orders issued in October 2001, May 2002, October 2002, May 2003 and October 2003.

5. By advertisement dated 13.3.2004 (corrected on 27.3.2004) UPSC advertised 45 posts of Ayurvedic Vaids. The term regarding age limit in the said advertisement prescribed that the age limit of the candidate (as on 1.4.2004) should not exceed 35 years. It further provided :

"Age is relaxable for employees of Municipal Corporation of Delhi up to five years Age is relaxable up to five years for SC/ST, and up to three years for OBC in respect of vacancies reserved for them. Age is also relaxable for employees of the Government of India and Union Territories upto five years."

6. Respondents filed WP(C) Nos.4787-4823/2004 in Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the Corporation to regularize their services in the vacant posts of Medical Officer (Ayurved) with effect from the respective dates of their initial appointment. Alternatively, they prayed that if the High Court was of the view that they could be regulated only pursuant to UPSC selection process, then to grant them due weightage for the service rendered by them on contract basis, and also extend the age relaxation by five years to those who were aged more than 35 years and had worked on contract basis for three years. They also sought a direction to the Corporation to extend the benefit of regular pay scale with consequential benefits and perks attached to the regular post of Ayurvedic Vaids, from the date of their initial appointment. However, when the writ petitions came up for hearing, the respondents (Writ petitioners) submitted that they would be satisfied if two directions were issued, the first being that those who had become overaged should be given the benefit of age relaxation and second, they should not be replaced by persons other than regular appointees.

7. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the writ petitioners were entitled to the said two limited reliefs. Therefore, he disposed of the writ petitions by order dated 26.4.2004 directing that those writ petitioners who had crossed 35 years would be entitled to the benefit of age relaxation corresponding to the number of years they had worked as contractual Medical Officers (Ayurved) under the Corporation and should be treated as eligible with reference to age requirement. He also directed that the services of the writ petitioners should not be replaced by anyone save and except those appointed on regular basis after undergoing the selection process.

8. The UPSC chose to approach this Court by filing SLPs against the order of the learned Single Judge, bypassing the remedy of appeal to the Division Bench, in view of the pendency of a similar issue before this Court in SLP (C) No. 15714/2003 (UPSC vs. Girish Jayantilal