AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. PROMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, in terms of order dated 31st December, 1992, was engaged by the appellant as one of the typist till regular arrangements are made to fill-up the post. The advertisement for regular post i.e. Assistant Grade-III was issued on 4th June, 1996. The age limit prescribed for the post is "Below 25 years". When the post was advertised the respondent had crossed the age of 25 years and had become over age. Thus, the respondent represented to the appellant and sought relaxation of 2 months in the age limit so as to enable her to become eligible for consideration for the post of Assistant Grade-III. This was declined. The respondent was given one month notice stating that her services shall not be required after 10th January, 1997 and she can seek employment elsewhere wherever she may be eligible.

(2.) The aforesaid action of the appellant was challenged by the respondent in the writ petition which has been allowed by learned Single Judge in terms of the judgment under appeal. The learned Single Judge had directed the appellant to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner by not applying the age bar. The appellant has been further directed to give due weightage to the fact that the writ petitioner worked with it for four years successfully and received praise from her superiors and if found suitable, she shall be appointed against any available vacancy of regular post of Typist, Assistant Grade-III and if vacancy is not available immediately, she shall be appointed against any future vacancy.

(3.) Challenging the impugned judgment, Mr. Jaitley contends that the writ petitioner/respondent was not eligible for being considered against the regular post of Assistant Grade-III in terms of the advertisement because she was overage, having crossed the age limit of 25 years and that no other application for the said post from anyone above 25 years was considered and, therefore, the writ petition deserves dismissal. The contention of learned counsel is that the mere fact that the respondent was engaged in January, 1993 to the post of Typist by itself cannot be a valid ground in law to direct relaxation of the age for appointment against a regular post. We agree. It is clear from the order dated 31st December, 1992 that the services of the writ petitioner were engaged for a initial period of three months. That engagement was till regular arrangements are made. It was extended from time to time till regular appointment was made but that did not preclude the writ petitioner to apply wherever she was eligible. When the advertisement for the regular post was issued it ought to have been known and in fact was known to the respondent that she had crossed the age of 25 years and that is the reason that representation was made by her seeking relaxation of 9 months in the age limit. The fact that the respondent had worked from January, 1993 and periodically her appointment was extended and that her work was satisfactory by itself cannot be a ground to grant relaxation of age and deprive the post to those who are within the age limit. Many others who had crossed age of 25 years may not have applied for the post finding that there is age bar of 25 years. Reliance by Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh 1992 (4) SLR 799, is misplaced. The said decision, has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It also deserves to be noticed that even in Piara Singh case it has been observed that the employee has to fulfil the prescribed qualification for the post. Looking from any angle, we are unable to sustain the view of learned Single Judge that the age bar shall not be made applicable to the respondent on the ground that she had worked for over three years before the advertisement for the regular post issued.