AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Judgment has been overruled by : Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and Others, AIR 2011 SC 2731 :
(2011) 130 FLR 1076 : (2011) 7 JT 502 : (2011) 7 SCALE 340 : (2011) 7 SCC 397 : (2011) 2 SCC(L&S) 267 : (2011) 9 SCR 1 :
(2011) AIRSCW 4252 : (2011) 6 Supreme 89
M. Chockalilngam, J.—These writ petitions challenge a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, made in O.A.
Nos. 304 and 305 of 2008 whereby a direction was given to the respondents namely the petitioners herein, to consider the case of the applicants
namely the respondents herein, for appointment as Sepoys by relaxing the age limit prescribed if necessary in view of the long service rendered by
them.
The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also for the respondents/caveators.
It is not in controversy that the respondents were engaged as casual labourers/contingent staff in the Office of the Commissioner of Central
Excise-II. They approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 764 of 2005 seeking regularisation of their services. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A.
Thereafter, the respondents preferred a writ petition against the O.A. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court issued a direction to the
petitioners herein to consider the matter afresh in the light of the circulars issued by the Department of Personnel in O.M. No. 49019/1-2006-
Estt(C) dated 11.12.2006 and the circular of the Ministry of Finance dated 7.9.2007 and 13.9.2007. The orders of the Government were based
on the orders of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 3595-3612/1999 dated
10.4.2006. A direction was given to the Union of India, State Government and their instrumentalities that they should take steps to regularise as
one time measure the services of such irregularly appointed who are duly qualified persons in terms of the statutory recruitment rules for the post
and who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned post but not under cover of orders of Courts or Tribunals.
The case of the applicants, respondents herein before the Tribunal was that the directions of the High Court have not yet been implemented; that
their claims in these O.As. were not with reference to the directions of the High Court; that there were 37 vacancies in the post of Sepoy notified
by the petitioners in their notification dated 14.1.2008; that as per the directions dated 6.5.2008, the petitioners have permitted the respondents to
participate in the selection process; that they have also got sufficient educational qualifications as well as physical standards required for the post of
Sepoy; that according to the age limit prescribed for the post, it is 27 years as on 1.1.2008 which was relaxable by five years for SC/ST
candidates and three years for OBC candidates; that they are in the age group of 32 to 37 years; that their applications would not be considered
on the ground of overage; that under the circumstances, all their applications were rejected, and hence immediately, O.As. were filed before the
Tribunal.
The Tribunal after giving opportunity to both sides, hearing the contentions and following the judgment of the Apex Court in Nagendra Chandra
etc. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2008 (2) AISLJ 426 as incorporated in the order has held that the said decision is applicable to the
respondents'' case for appointment by relaxing the age limit prescribed if necessary, in view of the long service rendered by them and hence
allowed the applications. Under the circumstances, these writ petitions have been filed to set aside that order.
The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there is already age limit prescribed for that post as 27 years as
on 1.1.208; that it could be relaxed by 5 years for SC/ST candidates and 3 years for OBC candidates; that the respondents/applicants have
already crossed that age limit, and now it could not be relaxed; that apart from that, the judgment of the Apex Court cannot be applied to the
present facts of the case; that in that case there was a Statutory Recruitment Rules and sanctioned posts; that under the circumstances, that
decision cannot be applied; and that so long as the age limit could not be relaxed, that direction given by the Tribunal has got to be set aside.
The Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondents caveators.
This Court paid its consideration on the submissions made.
Admittedly, these respondents were engaged as casual labourers/contingent staff in the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise-II. It is
also not in controversy that they have crossed the age limit, and they are in the age group of 32 to 37 years. Following the circulars issued with
regard to relaxation, directions were issued; but it has not been implemented. Under the circumstances notifications were issued calling for
applications. These respondents have also applied for. According to the respondents, they could not be considered on the ground of age limit from
32 to 37 years. Such a situation arose in a case as could be seen from the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above in Nagendra Chandra v.
State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2008 (2) AISLJ 426 wherein the Supreme Court has made the order as follows:
The competent authority was quite justified in terminating their services and the Hon''ble High Court, by the impugned order, was quite justified in
upholding the same.
In the result, the appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed, but in view of the fact that the appellants have continued in service for a
period of fourteen years, we may however, observe that their cases may be considered for future appointment and age bar, if any, may be relaxed
in relation to them....
From the observation made above, it would be quite clear that though the appeals were dismissed, it could be considered sympathetically in
the view of the Apex Court, as they have actually worked in service for a reasonable period of 14 years. In the case on hand, it is not in
controversy that the respondents have actually worked for a long time for nearly about a decade in the department. It is also true that age limit for
the post is also fixed as 27 years as on 1.1.2008, but it could be relaxed by 5 years for SC/ST candidates and 3 years for OBC candidates. As far
as the respondents are concerned, admittedly they are in the age group of 32 to 37 years. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court, their earlier
service has got to be taken into consideration in order to relax the age limit. But, the Tribunal has not pointed out what should be the relaxation of
the age limit. This Court is of the considered opinion that relaxation of age limit could be made as 5 years for SC/ST candidates and 3 years for
OBC candidates. Accordingly, it is relaxed by five years for SC/ST candidates and three years for OBC candidates which relaxation is applicable
only to the candidates who were actually erstwhile employees of the department. Taking into consideration the above age relaxation, the
applications of the respondents on the day when they applied before the authority could be taken up for consideration for giving appointment.
Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is modified, and both these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected MPs are
closed.