DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANR. versus SEEMA KAPOOR

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 22-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
517
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION
BOARD & ANR.
v.
SEEMA KAPOOR
(Civil Appeal No. 4461 of 2021)
JULY 22, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law – Age relaxation – When not entitled to –
Applications invited by appellant for various posts including the
post of PGT (English) Female – As per the advertisement, age
relaxation of five years permissible for Govt. Servant and
departmental candidates  – Claimed by Respondent, a Teacher
(Primary) in South Delhi Municipal Corporation – OA allowed by
CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi – Affirmed by High Court – Held:
Respondent, as an employee of the autonomous body i.e. the
Corporation, is not entitled to age relaxation either as a departmental
candidate or as a government servant – Further, the Circular of the
Government of India dtd. 27.3.12 made it clear that the benefit of
age relaxation is only meant for civil employees of the Central
Government and not to the employees of the autonomous bodies,
public sector undertakings etc. – High Court quoted a wrong
provision relating to subsequent advertisement – Respondent not
entitled to age relaxation as she cannot be considered as a
departmental candidate for appointment by way of direct recruit –
Orders passed by the High Court and Central Administrative
Tribunal, set aside.
Jai Prakash Wadhwa & Ors. vs Lt. Governor, Delhi
Admn. & Anr. (1997) 11 SCC 174 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1997) 11 SCC 174
referred to
Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4461 of
2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2019 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.1738 of 2019.
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 517
517
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
Madhvi Divan, ASG, Ayush Puri, Sanjeev Prakash Upadhyay, Jay
Anant Dehadrai, Sidharth Arora, B. V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the
appellants.
Somesh Chandra Jha, Umesh P. Wadhwani, Rahul Narang, Advs.
for the respondent.
The Order of the Court was passed by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
Delhi High Court on 20.2.2019 affirming the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi on 5.9.2018 whereby
an original application (OA) filed by the respondent herein was allowed,
holding that she was entitled to age relaxation of five years for
appointment to the post of PGT (English) Female.
2. The respondent is serving as Teacher (Primary) in South Delhi
Municipal Corporation1 since 7.4.2006. The appellant invited applications
for various posts including the post of PGT (English) Female, Post Code
No. 133/2012, vide Advertisement No. 2/2012. The age limit as per the
advertisement in respect of the post for which the respondent was an
applicant reads thus:
“Age Limit: Below 36 years & relaxable in case of Govt. Servant
and departmental candidates upto 05 years in accordance with
the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government. This
post is identified as suitable for OH/VH persons only as per the
Requisition of the User Department.”
3. The respondent’s date of birth is 10.2.1976 and on the closing
date of the receipt of the applications i.e. 15.6.2012, she was more than
36 years of age. The learned Tribunal allowed the OA filed by the
respondent holding that she was entitled to age relaxation as the
Corporation falls under the ambit of Government Organisation. It is the
said order which was affirmed by the High Court.
4. It is admitted by Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent,
that the reproduction by the High Court from the advertisement as
mentioned in para 4 is a condition in respect of a subsequent selection
process initiated vide advertisement in the year 2016.
1 For short, the ‘Corporation’
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
519
5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that as per the
conditions of advertisement, the age could be relaxed in case of
Government servants and departmental candidates. It is argued that the
respondent is not a government servant nor a departmental candidate,
therefore, the benefit of age relaxation is not permissible. It is also argued
that the Circular of the Government of India dated 27.3.2012 in respect
of relaxation of upper age limit allowed to various categories of various
Government servants are applicable only to Central Government civilian
employees holding civil posts and are not applicable to the personnel
working in the autonomous/statutory bodies, public sector undertakings
etc. which a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.