Union Public Service Commission vs Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others

3. Respondent no.1, Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela was appointed as Drugs Inspector on 11.3.1996 on short term contract basis on a fixed salary for a period of six months from the date of joining or till the date the candidate selected by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) joined duty on regular basis, whichever was earlier. The appointment of respondent no.1 was renewed after every six months with short breaks and it continued for over five years. An advertisement was issued by the UPSC on 24.3.2001 for making regular selection on the post of Drugs Inspector. Under the relevant recruitment rules made in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the upper age limit for making direct recruitment is 30 years, which is relaxable for Government servants upto five years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government. Respondent No.1 had become over-age by two years at the time when the advertisement was issued and consequently he submitted an application to the Administrator, Union Territory of Daman and Diu (for short "Administrator") for issuing him an age relaxation certificate. Since there was no response, respondent no.1 filed an Original Application on 16.7.2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay (for short "Tribunal") praying that a direction be issued to the Administrator to issue him an age relaxation certificate. The Tribunal vide its order dated 17.7.2001 directed the Administrator to decide the representation made by respondent no.1. Meanwhile, respondent no.1 was provisionally allowed to appear in the interview. On account of refusal of the Administrator to grant age relaxation certificate, respondent no.1 filed second Original Application before the Tribunal which passed an interim order to the effect that any appointment made on the post of Drugs Inspector would be subject to the outcome of the Original Application. Nearly 5 months after the interview, the UPSC cancelled the candidature of respondent no.1 and recommended the name of respondent no.4, Naresh Sharma for the post of Drugs Inspector. The contract appointment given to respondent no.1 came to an end on 30.9.2002 and it was not extended any further. The second Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 21.6.2002 on the finding that the appointment of respondent no.1 was made only on short term contract basis and he had not been appointed by following the recruitment rules and further that the intention of the Government was to provide relaxation in age only to regular Government servants and not to those who have been appointed on ad hoc basis de hors the rules. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court which was allowed by the order dated 13.12.2002 and the Administrator was directed to issue an age relaxation certificate to respondent no.1. A further direction was issued to the appellant U.P.S.C. to consider the claim of respondent no.1 and for making a recommendation to the Administrator for issuing him an offer of appointment as Drugs Inspector.

20. For the reasons discussed above, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent no.1 cannot be said to be a Government servant as he was working on contract basis and, therefore, he was not eligible for any relaxation in upper age limit. The view taken by the High Court is clearly erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside.

21. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order dated 13.12.2002 of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 is dismissed. No costs.