SARV RURAL AND URBAN WELFARE SOCIETY Vs. GOVT OF N C T OF DELHI
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SARV RURAL, URBAN WELFARE SOCIETY
GOVT.OF N.C.T.OF DELHI
Click here to view full 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.