Service Law – Appointment – Respondent no.2 selected for appointment as Re-T (teaching guides) under Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) scheme of appellant-State – Challenged by respondent no.1 – Writ petition dismissed by Single Judge – Appeal, allowed by Division Bench – Held: 35 years was the upper age limit for appointment as Re-T – Respondent no.2 who had crossed 35 years on the cut-off date was not eligible for appointment – Division Bench correctly directed the appointment of the respondent no.1 as Re-T – However, advertisement in question relates to appointment to a post of Re-T to which either respondent no.1 or respondent no.2 could have been appointed – Division Bench ought not to have directed the appointment of both the respondent nos.1 and 2 – Direction to continue respondent no.2 set aside – Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 16.
Constitution of India – Arts.14, 16 – Appointment to public posts – Compliance of eligibility criteria – Held: Appointments to public posts should be strictly in accordance with Arts.14 and 16 – Eligibility criteria should be uniform and there cannot be scope of arbitrary selections by unfettered discretion being vested in the authorities – Service Law.
Words & expressions – ‘as far as possible’ – Directory or mandatory – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Upper age limit notified in the advertisement for appointment as Re-T is 35 years as on 01.01.2002 which is the cut-off date for determining eligibility of a candidate who has applied in response to the advertisement dated 29.11.2002. Admittedly, the date of birth of second Respondent is 28.12.1965 and, therefore, she was more than 35 years on 01.01.2002. The learned Single Judge relied upon SRO 30 of 2003 by which the upper age limit was relaxed from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2004 SRO
30 of 2003 giving relaxation of upper age limit from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2004 cannot be made applicable to a selection which commenced by issuance of the advertisement dated 29.11.2002. [Para 5][11-G-H; 12-A-C]
1.2 The eligibility criteria for appointment as Re-T by the scheme as well as the advertisement includes a condition that a candidate shall ‘as far as possible’ fulfill the age qualification as prescribed by the State Government. The High Court construed the provision relating to upper age limit as mandatory. The conclusion of the Division Bench is approved. Appointments to public posts should be strictly in accordance with Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India. Eligibility criteria should be uniform and there cannot be scope of arbitrary selections by unfettered discretion being vested in the authorities. Construing the provision relating to upper age limit as directory would be conferring unbridled power in the executive to choose persons of their choice by relaxing the age beyond 35 years. In such case, the provision would have to be declared as unconstitutional. Therefore, 35 years is the upper age limit for appointment as Re-T. The 2nd Respondent who crossed 35 years on the cut-off date was not eligible for appointment. The High Court correctly directed the appointment of the 1st Respondent as Re-T. [Para 8][13-A-F]
1.3 While referring to the scheme in detail, the High Court took note of the fact that the Government can relax the upper age limit for regularization of Re-Ts. The scheme was discontinued and Re-Ts appointed under the scheme were considered for absorption as General Line Teachers. Even if a Re-T teacher was overaged, he/she would be eligible for formal appointment in the Government by relaxation of age. In view of the above, the Division Bench directed the continuance of Respondent No. 2. The advertisement in question relates to appointment to a post of Re-T to which either Respondent No.1 or Respondent No. 2 could have been appointed. The High Court ought not to have directed the appointment of both the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Having set aside the judgment of the Single Judge, the High Court committed no error in directing the appointment of Respondent No.1. The direction issued by the High Court to continue Respondent No.2 is set aside. Respondent No.2 has been continuing to work from 2004. Therefore, the Appellant is directed to accommodate her in any other vacancy. She shall not be entitled for any benefits prior to the date of her appointment afresh other than the salary and other allowances already paid for her services. [Paras 9, 10][13-F-H; 14-A-B]
Iridium Indian TeleCommunication v. Motorola InCharge (2005) 2 SCC 145 : [2005] 1 SCR 73 – referred to.
Manickchand Durgaprasad v. Pratabmull Rameswar AIR 1961 Cal 483 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.