Friday, March 13, 2026
Latest:
delhihighcourt

MS KIRTI vs THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Information

$~60

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: December 04, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 15560/2023

MS KIRTI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.H.K.Chaturvedi, Ms.Anjali Chaturvedi, Mr.Sagar Chaturvedi, Ms.Meghna Chaturvedi and Mr.Ramaditya Singh Jadon, Advocates

versus

THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. No.62331/2023 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 15560/2023
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated September 20, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in OA No.1019/2019 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner herein by holding in paragraphs 7 to 10 as under:-

“7. It is seen that the Recruitment Rules were notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and had been prevailing as against the relaxation granted by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor. The relaxation to women candidates by the Hon’ble Lt Governor vide notification dated 01.11.1980 in exercise of powers under Rules 43 of the Delhi School Education Rules was granted when the pre-existing rules were in force. With the enforcement of the amended Recruitment Rules, it could not be said that the said relaxation continued.

8. In this regard, we are guided by the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No0.3167/2017 Asha & Another Vs. Gout. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. dated 19.08.2019, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Raj Bala (supra) decided on 23.08.2017 referred to hereinabove. Relevant portion of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in Raja Bala (supra) reads as
under:-

“14. We are also of the view that the finding returned by the Tribunal that the said notification dated 01.11.1980 cannot be pressed into service after the Rules of 2011 have been framed for the purpose of recruitment of PETs, is correct and does not call for interference. This Court has held in Sachin Gupta (supra) that it is the prerogative of the employer to decide the age limit and academic suitability of candidates whom they wish to employ, and so long as the same are not in conflict with the academic eligibility and age prescribed by the NCTE. Challenge to the said prescription cannot be sustained, merely on the ground that the eligibility conditions render some candidates ineligible.”

9. Though the applicant has relied on a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Gauri Sharma (supra), however, that is not relevant so far as the facts of the present case are concerned.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law on the subject, we do not find any merit in the present OA and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.”

2. The claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal was with regard to an advertisement issued on December 20, 2017 inviting applications for various posts. The petitioner applied under the UR Category for the post of Domestic Science Teacher. The cut- off date for the same was January 31, 2018 and the prescribed age limit was 30 years. In view thereof, the petitioner was over aged by 07 years 9 months and 10 days on the cut-off date.
The case of the petitioner before Tribunal was, by relying upon the OM dated November 01, 1980 issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to contend that she is entitled to 10 years of age relaxation. The Tribunal in paragraph 8 has held that it is guided by the judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Bala & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) No.7240/2017, decided on August 23, 2017.
3. The submission of Mr. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has erred in concluding so inasmuch as the OM dated November 01, 1980 grants age relaxation to the extent of 10 years to the women candidates. So Recruitment Rules on which much reliance has been placed by the respondents though contemplate 30 years as the maximum age limit with 05 years of age relaxation but Clause 6 of the Recruitment Rules which is reproduced as under (at page 173 of the paperbook) has to be construed to mean that since OM dated November 01, 1980 is with regard to relaxation of age limit for special categories of persons which include women, the benefit thereof could not have been denied:

“6. Saving.- Nothing in these rules shall affect reservations, relaxation of age limit, and other concessions required to be provided for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Ex-Servicemen, Other Backward classes and other special categories of persons in accordance with the orders issued by the Government from time to time in this regard.”

Mr. Chaturvedi further submits that the issue with regard to the effect of Clause 6 of the Recruitment Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India has not been considered in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others v. Sachin Gupta & Ors., W.P.(C) 1520/2012 decided on 07.08.2013 and Raj Bala & Anr.(supra).
4. We are unable to agree with the said submissions of Mr. Chaturvedi for the reason that Raj Bala & Anr.(supra) follows the judgment of this Court in the case of Sachin Gupta & Ors.(supra). Moreover, in paragraph 13 of the Raj Bala & Anr.(supra), this Court has clearly held that the OM dated November 01, 1980 is not applicable to the Government Schools run by the Directorate of Education. There is no dispute that the advertisement issued is for making appointments in the Schools run by the Directorate of Education. So it must follow the OM dated November 01, 1980 on which much reliance has been placed by Mr. Chaturvedi has no applicability to the Schools run by the Directorate of Education and hence the plea of Mr.Chaturvedi that the petitioner shall be entitled to relaxation of 10 years as per OM Dated November 01, 1980 cannot be accepted.
5. In view of the above, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the OA. We find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
DECEMBER 04, 2023/v

W.P.(C) 15560/2023 Page 5 of 5