UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH Vs. RAJESH KUMAR BASANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union Territory of Chandigarh has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 25-10-1996 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent-Rajesh Kumar Basandhi, directing the present appellant, inter alia to consider his case for appointment to the post of Assistant District Attorney/Law Officer.

(2.) The whole case hinges upon the meaning and the interpretation of the expression "for the time being" as used in the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter to be called as the Rules), framed in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The question arose in the background of a notification of vacancies for recruitment to the post of Assistant District Attorney/Law Officer. Apart from other qualifications as laid down in the advertisement dated 16-5-1996, the age limit was required to be between 21-30 years as on the 1st day of January, 1996. The respondent No. 1 applied as one of the candidates for the post. There is no dispute about the fact that he was then aged 33 years that is to say beyond the maximum age limit as provided in the notification for filling up of the vacancies. Hence, his application was not entertained. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and by means of an interim order, he was allowed to appear in the examination and the selection process but final result was not to be declared.

(3.) The case of the respondent-Shri Rajesh Kumar Basandhi, who appeared in person, is that as per the rules applicable, the maximum age limit is 35 years but on the other hand according to the appellant it is 30 years. The Central Administrative Tribunal ultimately found that the maximum age limit is 35 years, therefore it directed to declare the result of the respondent and to consider his case for appointment to the post of Assistant District Attorney/Law Officer.