IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20596 of 2011 Date of Decision: 7.11.2011. Kiran Sharma --Petitioner Versus Union of India & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. Present:- Mr. R.C. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) This petition is directed against the judgement dated 10.5.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in a bunch of O.As including O.A No.291/CH/2010 titled as Kiran Sharma Vs. Union of India & others. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the respondent no.1 issued a public notice published in “Hindustan Times” dated 7.6.2009 inviting applications for recruitment against various posts on regular basis. At Sr. No.2 eight posts of Special Educator (DMR/DVTE) were notified. Four posts out of eight belong to general category. Apart from the stipulation regarding eligibility etc. notice also contained the condition regarding age relaxation which reads as under:- “ Age Relaxation- upper age limit will be relaxed to 10 years. Further relaxation for SC-05 years OBC-03 years, Widow/deserted Women, Women judicially separated fromtheir husband, who are not married-10 years. The Govt. Employees through proper channel-5 years will be given.” CWP No. 20596 of 2011 -2- The petitioner applied for the post through proper channel being a Govt. employee. Since the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility regarding age, she applied for relaxation of age. She was allowed to appear provisionally in the written test held on 28.11.2009. Respondents declined the request of the petitioner for relaxation of age. Aggrieved of the action of the respondents in declining the relaxation of age, petitioner filed O.A No.291/CH/2010. An interim direction was issued vide order dated 19.4.2010 reserving one post till further orders. The petitioner was declared successful in the written test and was called for interview to be held on 20.12.2010, subject to the outcome of the court case. On conclusion of the process of selection respondents no.4 to 6 were appointed and the petitioner remained unsuccessful. Petitioner filed above mentioned O.A before the Tribunal challenging the selection of respondents no.3 to 6 on the post of Special Educator (DMR/DVTE) and sought a further direction for her appointment. During the course of hearing before the Tribunal the petitioner prayed for relaxation in age. The Tribunal dismissed the petition primarily on the ground that since the petitioner has failed to qualify the test, the plea of age relaxation has become redundant. Learned counsel for petitioner has also tried to argue that she was awarded less marks in the interview. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as also the record. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner failed to qualify in the test/selection process and thus the question of relaxation of age definitely becomes irrelevant and redundant. The petitioner, though, argued that she was awarded less marks in the interview, however, this was CWP No. 20596 of 2011 -3- not a ground of challenge in the O.A filed by her and thus no cognizance can be taken of such a plea. The only relief claimed in O.A filed by the petitioner was for age relaxation and a direction for her selection/appointment. Since the petitioner failed to qualify, the question of age relaxation could not have been decided by the Tribunal. There was no other challenge to the process of selection. Under the given circumstances, we do not find any legal and factual infirmity in the impugned order. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 7.11.2011. lucky