RITU GARG AND ORS  Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

W.P.(C) 1178/2021 Page 1 of 8
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.01.2021
+ W.P.(C) 1178/2021

RITU GARG AND O RS. ….. Petitioner s
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with
Mr. Kamal R. Digpaul, Advocate for
UOI.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. Nos. 3318/2021 & 3319/2021 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application s stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1178/2021 & CM APPL. 3317/2021 (for ad -interim ex parte
relief)

3. The present petition has been listed before us in the post -lunch
session, on urgent mentioning. The Petitioners have approached this court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , impugning the final order
dated 28th January, 2021 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A./100/122/2021 dismissing the
2021:DHC:340-DB
W.P.(C) 1178/2021 Page 2 of 8
Original Application ( hereinafter referred to as ‘O.A.’) filed by the m. First
and foremost, we may note that t he transcript o f the impugned order is not
on record and the present petition has been filed stating that , as noted by the
counsel, the Tribunal has pronounced the order orally and dismissed the
O.A. filed by the Petitioners .

4. Briefly stated , the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are
as follows. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms has
constituted a Subordinate Services Commission, subsequently re -designated
as the Staff Selection Commission ( hereinafter ref erred to as ‘SSC’) to
make recruitment to various class III (now Group “C”) posts in various
Ministries/Departments of the Government of India and its subordinate
offices . The recruitment by the SSC for the vacant post (s) is notified for each
year be way o f open/public examin ations for the respective years. One such
examination is Combined Graduate Level Examination [hereinafter referred
to as ‘CGL ’], held annually for recruitmen t to various posts as notified in the
notice of examination for each respective year.

5. The SSC issued a notification dated 29th December, 2020 for the
Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2020 ( hereinafter referred to as
‘CGL 2020 ’) for filling up of various Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts in
different Ministries / Departments / Organizations. The schedule thereto
prescribed dates for the conduct of examination in 2021. The date of age
reckoning has been prescribed to be 1st January, 2021 and the last date of
applying for such examination is 31st January, 2021.

6. Petitioners contend that d ue to the non-conduct of the CGL
examination in the year 2020 , and the subsequent determination of age limit
(by fixation of 1st January 2021 as the date of age reckon ing vide notification
2021:DHC:340-DB
W.P.(C) 1178/2021 Page 3 of 8
dated 29th December, 2020) for the CGL 2020, they are being deprived of
their last opportunity to appear for the said examination , on account of being
overage on the said date , and thus, rendered ineligible to appear for the
same .

7. In this background, t he petitioners first filed a Wr it Petition (Civil)
No.458/2021 before this Court inter alia seeking urgent reliefs as well as
seeking relaxation in the age reckoning as per the notification dated 29th
December , 2020. The said petition was however withdrawn, with liberty to
avail the alternate remedy by approaching the Central Administrative
Tribunal , New Delhi under Section 19 o f the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985.

8. Accor dingly, the Petitioners filed the afore -stated O.A. before the
Tribunal and challenged the CGL 2020 , to the extent it fixed the age
reckoning date as 1st January 2021 to determine the eligibility of the
aspir ants, on the ground that it is unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary,
illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The
Tribunal has dismissed the O .A. vide the order impugned in the present
petition. Aggrieved with the dismissal, the Petitioner s by way of present
petition seek a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents for fixing the
date of age reckoning relatable to the year 2020.

9. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that
the date of reckoning of age for the CGL 2020, being of the successive year
(i.e. 1st January, 2021 ) is discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and
unconstitutional. The date of reckoning of age ought to be 1st January, 2020
as per the past pattern followed by Respondent No. 2. He contends that from
2017 onwards, CGL notification s have suffered administrative delay s and
2021:DHC:340-DB
W.P.(C) 1178/2021 Page 4 of 8
irregularities, resulting in a cascading effect impairing the normal conduc t of
examination and disturbing the schedule and pattern thereof. He submits that
on account of the aforesaid, there has been disorientation and distortion of
the process of recruitment. The action for notifying the date of age reckoning
for CGL 2020 as 1st January, 202 1 is not in good faith and does not serve
any public purpose as it de prives a large number of aspirants of their last
opportunity to appear for the said open/public examination, who would
otherwise have been eligible, had the exam been conducted as per the long
settled pattern and in accordance with the applicable OM of DOP T dated
14th July, 1988.

10. Although, we do not have the benefit of knowing the views of the
learned Tribunal as the transcript of the impugned order dated 28th January,
2021 is still awaited, we have heard Mr. Rajshekhar Rao considering the
urgency pressed by him that the last date for submitting the application for
CGL expires on 31st January, 2021.

11. We have carefully peruse d the record and given due consideration to
the contentions urged by Mr. Rao, however we are unable to accede to his
contention. T he controversy lies in narrow compass , as the facts are not in
dispute . In terms of the notification, the eligible age has to b e reckoned with
reference to the date of 1st January, 2021. This reckoning date apparently
deprives the petitioner of the last opportunity to appear for the said public
examination on account of being overage. However in our view , this would
not ipso facto entail that we should interfere in such a matter. The terms and
conditions of the recruitment, including the age limit are to be fixed by the
respondents. It is well settled in law that the employer is at liberty to fix the
qualifications as well as the age limit for the purpose of recruitment , and
2021:DHC:340-DB
W.P.(C) 1178/2021 Page 5 of 8
merely the fact that the same would cause prejudice to some participants,
cannot be a reason for the Court to interfere and set a different age limit.

12. Petitioners strongly relied upon the Office Memorandum No.
AB.14017/70/87 -Estt. (RR) dated 14th July, 1988 issued by the Government
of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G and Pensions, Department of Personnel
and Training (hereinafter referred to as ‘OM’) which sets out the crucial date
for determining the age limits for competitive examination conducted in
parts by UPSC/SSC. According to the instructions contained in para 2 of the
said OM, the crucial date for determining the age limits for competitive
examinations held for recruitment by UPSC/SSC etc. in the first half of the
year, is the first date of January of the year in which the examination is held;
and if the examination is held in the second half of the year, the crucial date
will be the first day of August of the year in which the examination is held.
Petitioners contend that the advertisement of the CGL 2020 was due to be
issued on 15th September, 2020 as per the tentative timetable published by
the Respondents , and therefore the reckoning date should be relatable to the
year 2020 .

13. The aforesaid OM dated 14th July, 1988 , in our view is of no
assistance them , in as much as it nowhere prescribe s that the age reckoning
can be set with reference to the year in which the vacancies were notif ied,
for recruitment through SSC . The said OM clarified the doubts expressed
with respect to the crucial date for determining the age limit in respect of
following examinations in the following terms:
“2. Some doubts have been expressed as to what should be the crucial
date for determining the age limits in respect of examinations which
are held in two parts on two different dates of the year. For instance,
the Preliminary examination of the Civil Services Examination is
normally held in the first half of the year and the Main examination i s
held in the second half of the year. In this case the position has been
2021:DHC:340-DB
W.P.(C) 1178/2021 Page 6 of 8
clearly indicated in the rules for this examination that the later of the
two dates would be the crucial date. If, however, both parts of an
examination fall in the first half of the year, the crucial date for
determining the age limits will normally be the 1st of January.
Similarly, if both parts of an examination fall in the second half of the
year, the crucial date for determining the age limits would be the 1st
of August. The posi tion in this regard is clarified in the following
illustrations: –
Illustrations
NAME OF
EXAMINATION DATE ON WHICH
FIRST PART OF
EXAM HELD DATE ON WHICH
SECOND PART OF
EXAM HELD DATE FOR DETERMINING
THE AGE LIMITS (MINIMUM
AND MAXIMUM )
1 2 3 4
Exam A 1-3-88 25-8-88 As on 1 -8-88
Exam B 1-9-88 1-3-89 As on 1 -1-89
Exam C 1-3-88 1-5-88 As on 1 -1-88

3. It may sometimes so h appen that due to exigencies of
circumstances an examination, wh ich is normally held during the
first half of the year, is shifted to the s econd half. In such a case, the
date for determining the age limits would still be the 1st of Ja nuary.
The exact position should be clearly indicated in the rules for the
respective examinations, which are notified for the purpose.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

14. The above para 3 of the OM dea ls only with such situation s where the
examination is shifted from first half to the second half of the year . It has no
stipulation for the situation which is being faced by the present petition er.
Moreover, from para 2, it is clear that the date of age reckoning relates to the
year in which the examination is held, and not the year in which the exam is
notified . Nevertheless, we are unimpressed with the submissions made by
Mr. Rao that since there have been administra tive delays on the part of the
respondents leading to cascading effect on the conduct of CGL
examinations, the aspirants would be entitle d to seek a mandamus for
changing the eligibility criteria by changing the age limit by altering the date
for reckoning the age. During the course of the arguments, we also pointed
out to Mr. Rao that any change in the age limit criteria would not only
impact the petitioners but would affect several other aspirants who may not
2021:DHC:340-DB
W.P.(C) 1178/2021 Page 7 of 8
have approach ed the Court , and therefore , chan ging the reckoning date
would lead to undesirable ramifications in as much as the entire CGL
examinatio n would have to be re -scheduled, which is not only undesirable,
but also against public interest.

15. Further, e ven if we assume that there have been administrative
irregularities , lapses and delays on the part of respondents, it does not
necessarily translate into a n actionable right in favour of the aspirant to seek
a change in the reckoning date. The employer has to weigh several factors
before embarking upon the recruitment drive , and judi cial review of such
reasons or factors is limited. We also do not see any arbitrariness on the part
of the respondents in fixing the age reckoning date . The said date has been
fixed keeping in mind the year in which the examination is being held. This
criteria cannot be held to be unreasonable or irrational. It is being applied
uniformly and not selectively . The same may result in rendering the
aspirants, such as the petitioner s, as overage, but it does not mean that there
is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are
unable to show any violation of any statutory rule on the part of the
respondents , except for referring to the OM of 1988 , which to mind is
inapplicable . The petitioners are also unable to show any rule whereby
relaxation can be given regarding the age for recruitment. The discretion of
the employer to fix the age reckoning date will obviously impact some
persons who fall on the other side of the said dat e, but that cannot be per se ,
arbitrary. This discretion of the Government cannot be considered as
capricious or whimsical.

16. It is also well recognised that administrative authorities are in the best
position to decide the requisite qualification for recruitment, since they have
experience in administration , and thus the Court would not readily interfere
2021:DHC:340-DB
W.P.(C) 1178/2021 Page 8 of 8
with such decisions. We must also bear in mind that fixing the eligibility
criteria and the other conditions of service are within the competence of the
Government. They are entitled to change the rules relating to a service or
alter or amend the same , keeping in view the adminis trative exigencies or
the necessities of the circumstances. Besides, the Petitioners have not shown
any right in their favour to seek holding of examination every year. This is
the prerogative of the Employer. Thus, in absence of any such right, they
canno t seek a mandamus, as prayed for. Further, Judicial review in such
matters can only be exercised if the action of the employer is contrary to any
constitutional or statutory provision or is competently arbitrary or vitiated on
account of being mala fide . In view of the above, we cannot issue a
mandamus to the Government to withdraw the notification and fix a
particular eligibility age criteria in the manner the petitioner s would like us
to.

17. We find no merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is
dismissed , along with pending application , with no order as to costs.

SANJEEV NARULA, J

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JANUARY 29, 202 1
nd/nk
2021:DHC:340-DB