LexDELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD versus PRAVEEN KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 12 S.C.R. 145
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD
A
v.
PRAVEEN KUMAR
(Civil Appeal No. 10824of2016)
NOVEMBER 11, 2016
[A. K. SIKRI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Service Law:
Recruitment - Eligibility -Age limit -Appellant board issued
advertisement for the post of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi ('MCD) schools - As per advertisement, the
B
c
age limit for candidates for the post of Teacher was 20-27 years -
When the final result of selected candidates was published in public
domain, respondent's name also appeared declaring him 'not eligible'
and the reason for ineligibility was 'over age' - Following the
D
;udgment of Delhi High Court in Sachin Gupta case, the Central
Administrative Tribunal ('CAT') as well as High Court directed the
Appellant board to give age relaxation to the respondent - On appeal,
held: It is the employer's prerogative to decide the age limit and
academic suitability of candidates which they wish to employ and
so long as the same are not contradictory to the academic eligibility
as prescribed by the NCTE Act, any challenge to the same, 111erely
because it renders some candidates ineligible, ought to be rejected
- On facts, High Court's judgment in Sachin Gupta's case cannot be
applicable for all times, as that was one time relaxation given for
the exa111ination which was conducted in the year 2008, in order to
ameliorate the hardship - On contrary, respondent applied for the
post pursuant to the advertisement published in the year 2009 -
Therefore, the judgment of High Court as well as of CAT set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
E
F
HELD: 1. It is the employer's prerogative to decide the
G
age limit and academic suitability of candidates which they wish
to employ and so long as the same are not contradictory to the
academic eligibility as prescribed by the NCTE Act, any challenge
to the same, merely because it renders some candidates
ineligible, ought to be rejected. Fixing of such age limit for a
145
H
146
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
r20I6l 12 S.C.R.
given post is a matter of policy. [Para 9] (152-G-H; 153-A]
2.1. In the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in
Sacliin Guota case, after rejecting the contentions on merits and
upholding the validity of the Recruitment Rules, the Court went
into the issue of hardship because of sudden reduction in the
upper age limit and only on that ground one time relaxation was
given to the petitioners in the said petition. A direction was given
to permit all those candidates who had completed the ETE course
either in the year 2006 or 2007 or 2008 to appear in the
examination. Thus, this was one time relaxation given for the
examination which was to be conducted in the year 2008, in order
to ameliorate the hardship. [Para 10) [153-A-C]
2.2. On perusal of the contours and scope of the judgment
and directions, it becomes abundantly clear that the said judgment
of the High Court in Sachi11 Gupta's case cannot be made
applicable for all times. The respondent was not the candidate in
D
the recruitment to the said post in the year 2008. On the contrary,
he applied for the post pursuant to the advertisement published
in the year 2009. In the impugned judgment the High Court has
failed to consider the aforesaid analysis of its earlier judgment in
Saclii11 Gupta's case. [Para 11) [154-C-E)
E
F
G
H
Union of India & Ors. v. Shivbachan Rai 2001 (9)
sec 356 - relied on.
Sachin Gupta v. DSSSB & Ors. (decided on 28.08.2008
by Delhi High Court) - held inapplicable.
Case Law Reference
2901 (9) sec 356
relied on
Para9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. I 0824
of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3104of2016.
Chander Uday Singh, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advs., Chirag M.
Shroff, Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, Vaibhav C., Ms. Neha Sangwan,
R. K. Rathore, B. K. Prasad, D. S. Mehra, Advs. for the Appellant.
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD v.
147
PRAVEEN KUMAR
Ashwani Bhardwaj, Amit Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.
A
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered
JUDGMENT
I. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter
referredto as the 'Appellant Board') seeks to impugne the legality of
the judgment and order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the High Court of
Delhi in Writ PExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.