AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
The instant OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by the applicant Sh. Naveen Kumar seeking the following reliefs :-
"8 a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07/11/2017 placed at Annexure A/1, to the extent, the applicant has been rejected on the grounds of 'overage' towards the post of Physical Education Teacher (Post Code 210/14)
b) Direct the respondents to further consider and appoint the applicant to the said post.
c) Accord all consequential benefits.
d) Award costs of the proceedings; and
e) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that in response to an advertisement published for filling up various posts of Physical Education Teachers (Post Code 210/14), being eligible, the applicant who belongs to OBC category, and is presently working as a Head Constable (Exe.) applied for the same. He appeared in the written test conducted on 30.04.2017 and obtained 78.75 marks. However, vide final result notice dated 07.11.2017, his candidature was rejected on the ground of ‘overage’ whereas, other candidates with 67.75 marks got selected. Against the said rejection order, the applicant preferred a representation dated 11.12.2017 but to no avail. Being aggrieved by this, he has filed the instant OA.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that being a government employee the applicant is entitled for age relaxation of upto 5 years. He further averred that the applicant had undergone various rigorous physical training programmes as well as three months Commando Training, hence the applicant would be very useful and an efficient candidate for the post of Physical Education Teacher. He relied on the Judgment of our Coordinate Bench in OA No. 2809/2008 dated 28.09.2015 in Onkar Nath Kashyap and Others vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors., that being an officer of Delhi Police he ought to have been treated as a Central Government Employee and given the benefit of age relaxation of 5 years as per DoPT OM No.15012/8/87-Estt(D) dated 15.10.1987.
However, the learned counsel of the respondents opposed the pleadings of the counsel of the applicant. She drew our attention to the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P (c) 10008/2018 where the CAT order in OA No. 2809/2008 has been challenged. She also stated that the applicant was not eligible as he was not from the allied cadre. His present job description as Constable in Delhi Police is quite different from that of the job description of Teacher (Physical Education) which he aspires for. His experience as a Constable has been policing, maintenance of law and order and dealing with criminals, thieves and dregs of the society. As a Teacher (Physical Education), he would have to train young children in physical activities which is a different cup of tea all together.
Heard the learned counsel of both the sides ; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant order of our Coordinate Bench and the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. We observe that this case is not covered by the order of our Coordinate Bench as it is under challenge in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Also the expertise - knowledge, skills, Attitude and Values – (KSAV) of a Delhi Police Constable is quite different from that of the Expertise required for a school Teacher (Physical Education). The Constable had been handling criminals and thieves in his present job which is quite different from the experience required for a School Teacher (Physical Education). They are from different backgrounds and not the same profession (allied cadre). The benefit of age relaxation of 5 years could only accrue to the applicant if he belonged to the allied cadre. Being not so, he cannot claim the benefit of age relaxation.
In the light of the above, we are of the firm conviction that the balance of convenience clearly lies with the respondents in the instant OA. The OA lacks merit ; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.