UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus DR. JAMUNA KURUP & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 992 · Decided: 21-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 992 
,-
A 
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
v 
DR. JAMUNA KURUP & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2294-2329 of 2008) 
B 
FEBRUARY 21, 2008 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, C.J., R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND 
.. 
J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Service law - Recruitment by UPSC - For the posts in 
c Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) - Advertisement 
prescribing age relaxation to the employees of MCD- Contract 
employees on the same post seeking age relaxation for regular 
appointment - Held: Contract employees were entitled to age 
relaxation - In absence of restrictive meaning of 'employee' 
D either under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act or under UPSC 
advertisement, 'employee' would include both permanent and 
temporary - Thus relaxation is applicable to both - Delhi 
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) sent a 
E requisition to Union Pubic Service Commission (UPSC) 
for recruiting Medical Officers, Ayurved. As the process 
of selection was likely to take considerable time, the 
Corporation made contract appointment on the post for 
a specified period or till the appointment on regular basis 
F through UPSC. Respondent Nos. 1 to 37 were appointed 
on contract basis. The contract appointments were 
,. , 
renewed from time to time in view of delay in regular 
selection. Thereafter UPSC issued advertisement in 
respect of the posts. In the advertisement relaxation in 
G age limit was permissible to the employees of MCD and 
others. The respondent-contract employees filed a writ 
petition, wherein High Court directed to grant age 
relaxation to the respondent-employees corresponding 
to the number of years they had worked on the post. 
H 
992 
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. DR. 
993 
JAMUNA KURUP & ORS. 
-, 
In appeals to this Court appellant-UPSC contended A 
•, 
that the respondent-employees being short term contract 
employees of MCD, cannot be said to be its employees 
as they were not regular and permanent employees; that 
since the age relaxation was intended to refer only to 
. 
regular and permanent employees, they were not eligible B 
-f 
-I 
_, 
for age relaxation. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Employment under the Municipal 
Corporation of Delhi could be either permanent/regular c 
or short term/contractual. The term 'employee' is not 
defined in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Nor 
is it defined in the advertisement of UPSC. The ordinary 
meaning of 'employee' is any person employed on salary 
or wage by an employer. When there is a contract of D 
employment, the person employed is the employee and 
tile person employing is the employer. In the absence of 
any restrictive definition, the word 'employee' would 
include both permanent or temporary, regular or short 
1 
term, contrai::tual or ad hoc. Therefore, all persons E 
"' 
employed by MCD whether permanent or contractual will 
be 'employees of MCD' .'[Paras 12 and 13] [998-E, F, G] 
1.2 The respondents who were appointed on contract 
basis initially for a pe'riod of six months, extended 
thereafter from time to time for further periods of six F 
months each, were therefore, employees of MCD, and 
consequently, entitled to the benefit of age relaxation. If 
the intention of MCD and UPSC was to extent the age 
relaxation only to permanent employees, the 
advertisement would have stated· that age relaxation G 
would be extended only to permanent or regular 
employees of MCD or that the age relaxation would be 
extended to employees of MCD other than contract or 
--, 
temporary employees. The fact that the term 'employees 
\ 
of MCD' is in no way restricted, makes it clear that the 
H 
J 
._,I 
994 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 5 S.C.R 
A intention was to include all employees including 
contractual employees. Therefore, there is no reason to 
interfere with the judgment of the High Court extending 
the benefit of age relaxation. [Para 13] [999-A, B, CJ 
1.3 UPSC is directed to declare the withheld results 
(· 
B of respondents who had participated in the examination 
in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court and grant 
the benefit of age relaxation as per the direction of High 
Court. [Para 15] [1000-D, E] 
c 
Roshan/al Tandan vs. Union of India 1968 (1) SCR 185; 
Dinesh Chandra Sanpma vs. State of Assam 1977(4) SCC 
441- distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2294-2329 of 2008. 
D 
... 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.2004 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.