of India & Ors. Vs. Shri Ramesh Singh Rajput  Insc 1309 (14 December 2007)
Arijit Pasayat & Aftab Alam
out of S.L.P. (C) No.830 of 2006) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Challenge 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
Factual background facts in a nutshell is as follows:
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.
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 date of birth in the School Records, though
selected, he was not appointed.
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.
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.
Appellant questioned the correctness of the CATs order by filing a writ
petition which came to be dismissed by the High Court of the impugned order.
Appellantss 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
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.
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.
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 of
was contended that since the respondent himself did not claim any relaxation at
any stage, and gave false declaration about his age, therefore, the view of the
CAT and the High Court is unsustainable.
counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there was no wrong
declaration. In fact, in the form and the affidavit both the dates were
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 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.
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.
Therefore, 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 if he is so advised. It shall be open to the 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.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.