SYED MEHEDI Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 07.03.2014 by which his application before it, for appropriate directions with respect to age relaxation for recruitment to the post of Special Educator in the Govt. of NCT schools, was rejected.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner is a qualified Special Educator, holding B.Ed qualification which he acquired in 2009. By a judgment dated 16.09.2009 in Social Jurist v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, this Court directed the government agencies to take immediate steps for the recruitment of Special Educators in all schools managed by State government and local bodies. Consequently, on 04.11.2010, the posts were sanctioned; the vacancies for recruitment towards these posts were advertised sometime in January-February 2013. The advertisement in the present case called for applications, the last date being 20.02.2013. Besides spelling-out the educational qualifications, the advertisement also specified the age-limit which was 30 years in terms of the recruitment rules notified at that time. The advertisement also stated that the age-limit could be relaxed at the discretion of the Government, again reiterating the rules. The petitioner concededly applied before the last date prescribed. However, since he did not fulfil the age criteria, he sought a relaxation of the age limit. Complaining that the respondents did not deal with the representation, he approached the CAT. During the pendency of the proceedings before the CAT, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the recruitment process but the results were not permitted to be declared and they were kept in a sealed cover. By the impugned order, the CAT ultimately rejected the petitioner's application. It is contended that since the posts were only created in the year 2010 and since there is a need for large number of Special Educators, the refusal of the Department to consider and pass any orders with regard to age relaxation is arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that the original advertisement which is in question in the present proceeding, had sought applications for 927 posts of which only about 200 could be filled-up and even as on date, several vacancies exist. The posts were readvertised. It is pointed-out further that despite successive examinations, the posts have not been filled. Learned counsel lastly relied upon a Notification/Public Notice dated 26.03.2013, which granted blanket age relaxation to women candidates for the post of Special Educators. It was submitted that having regard to these facts, it is evident that there is no overwhelming public interest in denying the petitioner of the age relaxation; the petitioner's request can be considered reasonably having regard to the need to fill the posts with the most suitable candidates in the larger public interest.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the representation seeking age relaxation was made by the petitioner beyond the notified date for applying for the post. It was submitted that even before the CAT, at best the petitioner's claim was only being considered for age relaxation, which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Responding to the argument with respect to the Notification dated 26.03.2013, it was urged that it is clear that such gender-based classification is justified having regard to the nature of the posts.