SARV RURAL AND URBAN WELFARE SOCIETY Vs. GOVT OF N C T OF DELHI
LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-68
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on May 03,2007

SARV RURAL, URBAN WELFARE SOCIETY Appellant
VERSUS
GOVT.OF N.C.T.OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

T.S.THAKUR, J. - (1.) Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board has invited applications for the post of Librarian in Directorate of Education carrying a pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/- and a similar post in the Directorate of Training and Technical Education carrying a pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000/-. The notification issued by the Selection Board, in this regard, stipulates that the age of the candidates for the post of Librarian in the Directorate of Education should not be more than 30 years whereas for the post of Librarian in Directorate of Training and Technical Education, the upper age limit is fixed at 35 years. The notification makes it clear that the age limits in either case are relaxable in accordance with the instructions/orders issued by the Central Government. The petitioner Society is aggrieved of the said notification and has filed the present petition in purported public interest. The petition prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to have one simple criterian in the Recruitment Rules prescribing a common recruitment age for the candidates. A further direction to the respondents to extend the last date for submission of the application by another 15 days has also been prayed for.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The notification referred to by the petitioner specifies the requirement of age differently for the posts advertised by the same. What is, however, significant is that the experience required for the appointment against both the posts is also different and so is the pay scale. The Recruitment Rules regulating the appointments against the two posts which are in two different departments are also bound to be different. Just because two different sets of Rules prescribe different age limits for purposes of recruitment, does not, in our opinion, constitute hostile discrimination or cause any prejudice to either the Society or its members seeking employment. So also the question whether or not a particular candidate is entitled to the concession of age relaxation is a matter that can be more appropriately examined in a petition filed by the candidate himself. There is no question of the petitioner espousing the cause of the affected candidate in public interest.
(3.) There is no merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-, which shall be deposited in the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Fund.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.