KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS. versus SAJAL KUMAR ROY AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 607 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KENDRIY A VJDY ALAYA SANGA THAN AND ORS. 
v. 
SAJAL KUMAR ROY AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas: 
Article 45-Age limit-Provision for relaxation to candidates of specified 
categories-Relaxation in upper age limit directed by Tribunal and High 
Court to be given to candidates belonging to General Categories not falling 
in the specified categories-Held, Tribunal and High Court committed manifest 
error in issuing the directions. 
The respondents, in pursuance of an advertisement, applied for the post 
of Lower Division Clerk. The respondents were said.to be near relatives of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
the employees of regional office of the appellant-Kendriya Vidyalaya 
Sangathan, and had crossed the prescribed upper age limit. Written and typing 
tests were held. Certain irregularities were alleged to have been committed E 
in the typing test. An original application was filed in the Central 
Administrative Tribunal for a direction to the appellants to relax the upper 
age bar. The Tribunal directed for appointment of the respondents after 
relaxing the age limit The High Court, in writ petition held that appointment 
could not have been ordered unless the appointing authority exercised the 
power of relaxation of age limit and directed the appointing authority to F 
consider relaxation of age limit and thereafter issue appointment orders to 
the respondents on the basis of their merit. 
In the present appeal filed by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, it was 
contended that the regional office committed irregularities in allowing the G 
respondents to appear in the written and typing tests as they had crossed the 
prescribed age limit and the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed 
error of law in directing to appoint them after consideration of relaxation of 
age bar. 
607 
H 
608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.CR. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: It is not in dispute that the respondent, were over-aged on the 
relevant date. They are not members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled 
Tribe. Article 45 of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas prescribing 
the age limit is in two parts. The first part talks about the age limit. The 
B second part provides for relaxation. Such relaxation can be granted for the 
purpose specified, i.e. in favour of those who answered the descriptions stated 
therein. Relaxation of age limit even in relation to Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes candidates or the Retrenched Central Government 
employees, including the defence personnel is, however, not automatic. The 
C appointing authorities are required to apply their mind while exercising their 
discretionary jurisdiction to relax the age limit. Discretion of the authorities 
is required to be exercised only for deserving candidates and upon 
recommendations of the Appointing Committee/Selection Committee. The 
requirements to comply with the rules, it is trite, were required to be complied 
with fairly and reasonably. They were bound by the rules. The discretionary 
D jurisdiction could be exercised for relaxation of age provided for in the rules 
and within the four corners thereof. As respondents do not come within the 
purview of the exception contained in Article 45 of the Education Code, the 
Tribunal and, consequently, the High Court committed a manifest error in 
issuing the directions. [609-F; 612-A-El 
E 
F 
G 
Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh and Ors., [2005) 3 
SCC 618 and Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 11997] 6 SCC 
614, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4569 of2006. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 12.8.2004 of the High Court 
ofGauhati at Gauhati in W.P. (C) No. 7281/2001. 
S. Rajappa for the Appellants. 
Amitesh Kumar and Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant before us is a society registered under the Societies 
H Registration Act. It runs a chain of schools known as Kendriya Vidyalayas 
• 
KENDRIY A VIDY ALAYA SANG A THAN v. SAJAL KUMAR ROY [S.B. SINHA,!] 
609 
all over the country. An advertisement was issued in respect of eight vacancies A 
which arose in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Silchar region. 
Respondent applied for recruitment to the said post pursuant to or in 
furtherance of the said advertisement. Written and typing tests were held. As 

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