Beena Parashar vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) And Anr

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Nursing Officer. The

applicant and several candidates responded. A written test was conducted and thereafter the results were declared on 08.10.2020. The applicant was

shown as one of the successful candidates. However, at the stage of verification of records, it was found that the applicant was over aged by two

years. Accordingly, a communication was issued to her on 19.11.2020 rejecting her candidature. This OA is filed challenging the communication dated

19.11.2020.

The applicant contends that though the stipulated age limit is 30 years and she is 32 years old, the fact that she is employed as a Staff Nurse in the

Health Department of State of UP is not being taken into account. She further contends that the AIIMS itself engaged her on contractual basis for

certain period and the same deserves to be taken into account.

Further contention of the applicant is that there is a provision for relaxation of age by 5 years in favour of in-service candidates, and that the

respondents cannot differentiate between the service in the Central Government establishment, on the one hand, and the one in State Government, on

the other hand. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Guwahati High Court in Writ Petition No.845/2014 and batch.

We heard Shri M. K. Bhardwaj with Shri M. D. Jangra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Tushar Gupta, learned counsel for the

respondents.

It is not in dispute that the respondents stipulated the age limit as 30 years for the post of Nursing Officer. Relaxation to the extent of five years is

provided only in favour of the employees of the Central Government who are working in the line. Admittedly, the applicant is not an employee of the

Central Government. It is stated that the applicant is working as Staff Nurse in the health department of the State of UP.

In case the applicant was of the view that the stipulation made in the advertisement about the age limit or non extension of benefit of relaxation to

the staff nurses elsewhere is contrary to law, it was expected of her to challenge the same before taking part in the selection process. She applied and

took part in the examination, without any demur. It is only when her candidature was rejected, that she came forward with the plea of discrimination.

It is fairly well settled that a candidate who takes part in a competitive examination, without any demur, cannot challenge the conditions stipulated

therein once he or she is not selected.

The judgment of the Guwahati High Court was in relation to the appointment in the State Government itself. Further, if the plea of the applicant is

accepted, the Staff Nurses or similar employees working across the country must be extended the benefit of relaxation. The Staff Nurses in the State

Government establishments may not have applied by taking note of the condition in the advertisement. If the relief is granted to the applicant at this

stage, it would result in serious injustice to other similar candidates who did not apply. It would also amount to redefining the conditions in the

advertisement. Added to that, the Recruitment Rules also need to be taken into account.

Though reliance is placed upon an OM of the year 1981, we find that it was too general in nature and the developments that have taken place over

past four decades cannot be ignored.

We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.