Case: Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Vs. Praveen Kumar

4. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal can be summarized asThe Appellant Board has been incorporated with the purpose of recruiting competent individuals by conducting written tests, personal interviews etc. for the user departments. In the present case, on the request of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), an advertisement for the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD Schools, along with other posts, was published on 07.11.2009 by the Appellant Board. As per the advertisement, the age limit for candidates for the post of Teacher (Primary) wasyears and relaxations were applicable as per rules. Subsequently, the Appellant Board issued addendum of advertisement on 13.09.2011 informing that pursuant to the directions of the CAT dated 20.07.2010, the Recruitment Rules for the said post have been modified by the MCD and the cutoff date was stated to be 15.01.2010 for calculating the age limit.The Appellant Board prepared the Marks List of 20,014 candidates and uploaded the same on its website on 08.07.2014. On the basis of the Marks List, the MCD, being the user department, approved the checklist as per Recruitment Rules and classified all cases as provisionally selected. Final result was published in public domain on 05.12.2014, in respect of candidates being selected, rejected or whose candidature was kept pending while mentioning the reason thereof. The Appellant Board also published the names of ineligible candidates wherein the respondents name also appeared, declaring him as not eligible and the reason for his ineligibility was mentioned as over age.6. In the instant case, the respondent claimed eligibility before the CAT by filing an Original Application for the post of Teacher (Primary) in the MCD Schools challenging the reject notice dated 05.12.2014. The respondent herein sought relief from the Courts below relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sachin Gupta v. DSSSB & Ors. decided on 28.08.2008. Following the said judgment, the CAT as well as the High Court directed the Appellant Board to give age relaxation to the respondent. The Appellant Board, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the High Court, is before us in this appeal.

Reasoning: 7. If one goes strictly by the eligibility conditions stipulated in the advertisement or the Rules for recruitment to the post of Teacher (Primary), it cannot be disputed that the upper age limit for consideration to appointment to the aforesaid post is 27 years. It means that any person who has attained the age of 27 years renders himself/herself ineligible to apply for the said post. Notwithstanding the same, benefit of age relaxation was given to the respondent herein relying upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sachin Guptas case. Therefore, the first question for consideration is as to whether that judgment can be made applicable in the case of the respondent as well.8. A copy of the said judgment dated 28.08.2008 passed in Sachin Guptas case was produced before us and we have gone through it. On going through this judgment, one finds that, in that case, challenge was made to the Notification dated 13.07.2007, vide which Recruitment Rules for the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Government of NCT, Delhi or Municipal Corporation of Delhi, as being unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary. These rules were promulgated by exercising the power by virtue of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Insofar as the Government of NCT, Delhi is concerned, it exercised power under Section 98 read with Section 480(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, qua MCD. Vide these rules minimum and maximum eligible age for the candidates to the said post was fixed atyears respectively. However, before the promulgation of these Rules, as per the earlier Rules the upper age limit was 32 years for male candidates and 42 years for female candidates. The main ground of the challenge was that by notification of such Rules petitioners therein had lost their chance as there was legitimate expectation given to them that they would be eligible till the age of 32 years. It was argued that the prospectus of the two years Elementary Teachers Education course expressly professed that it was "carefully designed to prepare teachers at elementary level in Delhi" and contained a minimum and maximum age of enrolment as 17 and 30 years respectively, thereby representing that aspirants between 19 to 32 years would be eligible for appointment to the post of teachers in Delhi. The High Court rejected the aforesaid contention and even other contentions raised by the petitioners. It was further held that the Rules were statutory and had legislative character and such Rules could not be challenged on the ground of mala fides. It was also held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation has no application.The High Court also accepted the well recognised principle that it is the employers prerogative to decide the age limit and academic suitability of candidates which they wish to employ and so long as the same are not contradictory to the academic eligibility as prescribed by the NCTE Act, any challenge to the same, merely because it renders some candidates ineligible, ought to be rejected. Fixing of such age limit for a given post is a matter of policy as held by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Shivbachan Rai reported in 2001 (9) SCC 356.  10. After rejecting the contentions on merits and upholding the validity of the Recruitment Rules, the Court went into the issue of hardship because of sudden reduction in the upper age limit and only on that ground one time relaxation was given to the petitioners in the said petition. A direction was given to permit all those candidates who had completed the ETE course either in the year 2006 or 2007 or 2008 to appear in the examination. Thus, this was one time relaxation given for the examination which was to be conducted in the year 2008, in order to ameliorate the hardship.11. Once, we understand the contours and scope of the judgment and directions, it becomes abundantly clear that the said judgment of the High Court in Sachin Guptas case cannot be made applicable for all times. The respondent herein was not the candidate in the recruitment to the said post in the year 2008. On the contrary, he applied for the post pursuant to the advertisement published in the year 2009. In the impugned judgment the High Court has failed to consider the aforesaid analysis of its earlier judgment in Sachin Guptas case.