- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 14 December 2007
- Bench
- Arijit Pasayat, Aftab Alam
- Result
- Appeal partly allowed.
Headnote
Service Law-Appointment-Application for recruitment-Date of birth disclosed by candidate varyingfrom the date of birth mentioned in his school records-Candidate seeking the authority, correction in the date of birth in school records-Candidate selected, but denied appointment finding him averaged on the basis of date of birth in school records-Order challenged-By subsequent Rules two years relaxation given in recruitment-At the time of arguments benefit of Rules sought by candidate-Tribunal directing appointment on the basis of Rules-High Court upholding order of tribunal-On appeal, held: Authorities having selected the candidate despite having knowledge of date of birth as per school records, could not deny appointment-However, since the benefit of the subsequent Rules were not pleaded before the authority, order of courts below quashed-Liberty given to candidate to move the authority seeking relaxation as per Rules-Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limits for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998.
Pursuant to a recruitment notice, respondent was selected for the post of'cook'. His date of birth in the school records was found to be 17.3.1977. Respondent filed an affidavit stating that his date of birth was 17.3.1978 and also sought for correction of date of birth in school records. Respondent was not appointed, as he was found to be over-aged with reference to the date of birth in school certificates.
Respondent filed application before Central Administrative Tribunal seeking direction for his appointment. At the time of arguments he pleaded that he was entitled to relaxation of2 years in upper age limit in view of Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limit for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998 whereby the upper age limit in respect of direct recruitment was increased by two years. Tribunal though held that correction of age was not within the domain of the appellants, but allowed the application on the ground that he was entitled to relaxation in age in view of the Rules. High Court, in writ petition upheld the order of Tribunal. Hence the present appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. From the record it appears that the authority did not issue any appointment order to the respondent on the ground that he gave a false date of birth. Stand of the respondent before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was that the date of birth of the respondent is 17.3.1977. In an annexure he claimed it to be 17.3.1978. The appellants knew about this date and, therefore, held him to be qualified candidate and, therefore, he was interviewed by the Selection Committee and found suitable. Having proceeded in that manner it was not open to the appellants to deny appointment. [Para 11) [951-B-C) 2. The CAT itself accepted that the question of correcting date of birth was not within the domain of the appellants and it was open to the respondent to move appropriate authority in that regard. Having said so, CAT held that there was scope for relaxation. There were no pleadings in that regard. As a matter of fact, there is no reference even to the relaxation aspect in the application before CAT. For the first time such stand was taken during the hearing before the CAT. The High Court did not consider this aspect. It is open to the respondent to move the authority for relaxation if he is so advised. It shall be open to the authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. [Paras 12and13) [951-D-F]
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
¶2Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.
¶3Factual background facts in a nutshell is as follows:
The appellant No.2 herein invited applications for several posts including the post of Cook by Employment/ Recruitment Notice published in the Employment News dated 19-25th October, 2002. The upper age limit in regard to unreserved category candidate was mentioned as 25 yrs. Respondent furnished his date of birth as 17.3.1978 and on that basis he was selected. The School Certificate and other records showed the date of birth as 17.3 1977. Respondent claimed that he did not suppress any facts and he disclosed all the material facts in regard to his date of birth and had also filed an affidavit stating that his date of birth was 17.3.1978 and he had sought for correction of date of birth in the School Records. However, as he was found to be over 25 years, with reference to the t date of birth in the School Records, though selected, he was not appointed.
Feeling aggrieved by his non-appointment, though selected, the Respondent herein filed O.A. No.322/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (in short 'CAT') seeking a direction to the appellants herein to appoint him as Cook. One of the grounds urged by him by amending the applications was that the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limits for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998 ('Rules' for short) which came into force on 1.4.1999 had increased the upper age limit for recruitment by the method of"Direct Open Competitive Examination" to the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts specified in the relevant Service/Recruitment Rules, by two years. He contended that he was entitled to the benefit of said increase and if two years was added, he would fulfill the age recruitment even if the date of birth is taken as 17.3.1977.
¶4CAT allowed the application holding that the Rules applied to the post for Cook for which the respondent had applied and the applicant was entitled to relaxation by two years under the said rules and if such age relaxation is accorded, his selection would be valid.
¶5Appellant questioned the correctness of the CAT's order by filing a writ petition which came to be dismissed by the High Court of the impugned order.
¶6Appellants's stand before the High Court was that the said rules applied only to recruitment through direct competitive examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (in short 'UPSC') and the Staff Selection Commission (in short 'SCC'). The recruitment in Indian Air Force is not through Central Agency but by a Board constituted by the Commanding Officer of the Station/Units and, therefore, the Rules did not apply.
¶7The High Court found that the recruitment was by direct recruitment though it was not by the UPSC/SCC but authority under the Central Government. Therefore, the CAT rightly held that the Rules were applicable. The High Court found no substance in the plea about the false declaration of age and non-applicability of the Rules.
¶8In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the admitted position is that according to his own affidavit, he has mentioned his date of birth to be 17.3.1978 and in the application form on the basis of the matriculation certificate it was mentioned as 17.3 .1977. CAT accepted that the correction of date of birth could have been done only by moving an appropriate application before the concerned authorities or the Education board. Having so observed, the CAT held that this case is ofrelaxation.
¶9lt was contended that since the respondent himself did not claim any relaxation at any stage, and gave false declaration about his age, therefore, tlie view of the CAT and the High Court is unsustainable.
¶10Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there was no wrong declaration. In fact, in the fonn and the affidavit both the dates were indicated.
¶11From the record it appears that the authority did not issue any appointment order to the respondent on the ground that he gave a false date of birth. Stand of the respondent before CAT was that it appears from the application filed before it is that the date of birth of the respondent is 17.3.1978. In an annexure he claimed it to be 17.3.1978. The appellants knew about this date and, therefore, held him to be qualified candidate and, therefore, he was interviewed by the Selection Committee and found suitable. Having proceeded in that manner it was not open to the appellants to deny appointment.
¶12It appears that the CAT itself accepted that the question of correcting date of birth was not within the domain of the appellants and it was open to the respondent to move appropriate authority in that regard. Having said so, CAT held that there was scope for relaxation. There were no pleadings in that regard. As a matter of fact, there is no reference even to the relaxation aspect in the application before CAT. For the first time such stand was taken during the hearing before the CAT. The High Court unfortunately did not consider this aspect.
¶13Therefore, the orders of the CAT and the High Court are unsustainable and are quashed. It will be open to the respondent to move to the authority for relaxation ifhe is so advised. It shall be open to the ..F authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. We do not express any opinion about the acceptability or otherwise if prayer for relaxation is made.
¶14The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5953 of 2007.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2005 of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur In W.P. (S) No. 12876 of2004.
Appearances
R. Mohan, ASG., S. Wasim, A. Qadri, Jubair Ahma Khan, Charan Lal Sahu, B.K. Prasad and Anil Katiyar for the Appellant.
Vivek K. Tankha, B.K. Satija, Ratna Kaul and Sidharth Gupta for the Respondent.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.