UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHIVBACHAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the material time the respondent was holding the post of Hatchery officer in the Central Poultry Breeding Farms under the Ministry of agriculture.

(2.) On 15-2-1990 the Union Public Service Commission advertised for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director in the Central Poultry breeding Farms under the Ministry of Agriculture. Under the advertisement the prescribed age for the candidates was not exceeding 35 years as on 31-5-1990, relaxing up to 5 years for government servants. This condition relating to age of the candidates was in accordance with the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution on 29-3-1985 regulating the method of recruitment to the post of Director and Assistant Director (Group A posts in the Central Poultry Breeding Farms, under the Ministry of Agriculture). The said Rules of 1985, inter alias, prescribe the age limit for direct recruits to the post of Assistant Director. The Rules state: under column 6 which pertains to age limits for direct recruits, "not exceeding 35 years (relaxable for government servants up to 5 years in accordance with the instructions and orders issued by the Central Government) ".

(3.) The respondent was overage even after taking into consideration the relaxation of 5 years granted under the Rules. Therefore, he was not called for an interview. Thereupon, the respondent filed an application before the central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi claiming that the earlier recruitment rules prescribed under the notification of 16-11-1976 were still in force, since they were not expressly superseded by the notification prescribing new rules dated 29-3-1985. Under the earlier rules, while the age of recruitment for the post of Assistant Director by direct recruitment was 35 years, it was relaxable in the case of government servants. The rules did not prescribe any limit up to which such relaxation could be granted. The tribunal, by the impugned order has accepted the plea of the respondent, holding that the maximum period prescribed for relaxation, namely, 5 years in the Rules of 1985 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution.