KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN Vs. SAJAL KUMAR ROY
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-48
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GAUHATI)
Decided on October 19,2006

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN Appellant
VERSUS
SAJAL KUMAR ROY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

AMI LAL BHAT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. BHANU LODH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF ORISSA VS. PRASANA KUMAR SAHOO [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-124] [REFERRED TO]
CSIR VS. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL [LAWS(SC)-2008-12-182] [REFERRED TO]
UOI VS. A K CHOPRA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-11-109] [REFERRED TO]
SUDIPTA MONDAL VS. ARJUN KUMAR DEY [LAWS(CAL)-2010-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
SHARMILA NAOREM VS. THE STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR SINGH VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAMATA MOHANTY [LAWS(SC)-2011-2-45] [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD VS. BHUPENDRA C.PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2013-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA KUMAR MEENA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
SENGSIME A. SANGMA VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2014-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
DAMIR CH. MARAK VS. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND ORS. VS. RAJ KUMAR KANAUJIA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-478] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITY NONGBRI VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
MAMITA CHOUDHURY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2013-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SONKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. BIJAY KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2008-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
I G KARMIK VS. PRAHALAD MANI TRIPATHI [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-159] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL VS. ALOK SHARMA [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-102] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARAM PAL [LAWS(SC)-2009-2-235] [REFERRED TO]
Vibha Srivastava VS. Cantonment Board, Varanasi and others [LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-219] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESH KUMAR VS. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
Maqbul Ansari VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-5-161] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR PANDIT VS. PURABI KALITA AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2007-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC [LAWS(P&H)-2013-3-474] [REFERRED]
PENSION FUND REGULATORY & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PFRDA) VS. SUBROTO DAS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-2-120] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-2-118] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI KANT MISHRA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-10-88] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA DATTATREYA RAUT VS. NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2019-4-59] [REFERRED TO]
ATUL KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-145] [REFERRED TO]
ATANU CHAKRABORTY VS. HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. KIRAN SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-2019-5-206] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED VS. PAPPU KR PANKAJ [LAWS(PAT)-2021-5-18] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Appellant before us is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It runs a chain of schools known as Kendriya Vidyalayas all over the country. An advertisement was issued in respect of eight vacancies which arose in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Silchar region. Respondent applied for recruitment to the said post pursuant to or in furtherance of the said advertisement. Written and typing tests were held. As per Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Appointment, Promotion, Seniority) Rules, 1971 (for short, 'the Rules), the age limit prescribed therefor was 18-25 years as on 30.6.1994, which was, however, relaxable. Respondents are said to be near relatives of the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Regional Office, Silchar. The candidates who were over-aged were also permitted to appear at the examination in contravention of the Rules. Certain irregularities were also committed in the matter of conducting typing test. Higher authorities of the school were moved for cancellation of the recruitment of the LDCs.
(3.)An Original Application was filed by Respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, praying for a direction upon Appellants to relax the age of the candidates. By an order dated 15.3.2001, the Tribunal directed Appellants to do so. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, a writ petition was filed by Appellants before the Gauhati High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court directed :
"In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, we hold that direction, as issued by the Tribunal, could not have been given for appointment of the private respondents, until and unless the Appointing Authority exercises the power of relaxation of age limit. In view of the above, we direct the Appointing Authority to consider the case of respondents herein, for relaxation of the age limit within a period of 3 (three) months from the placement of a certified copy of this order before the Appointing Authority, and on relaxation of the age limit, include their names in the select list and thereafter issue appointment orders to them, in accordance with law on the basis of the merit of the candidate."



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