UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions have been preferred by the postal Department for the Union of India. The challenge is to the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28. 4. 1999 passed in C. A. Nos. 598 and 568 of 1996 respectively. The respective 2nd respondent in these writ petitions came forward with the above referred to O. As seeking the relief that letter No. 44-31/87-SPB. 1 dated 28. 8. 1990 be set aside insofar as the same prescribe maximum age limit for E. D. Agents to be considered for appointment as group "d" and also quash the order No. D4-2/26 dated 7. 6. 1995 issued by the 3rd petitioner. They also prayed for a direction to the petitioners to consider them for appointment as Group "d" purely based on their seniority and satisfactory service regardless of their age with all consequential benefits. The claim was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that the respective 2nd respondent hav e completed 50 years of age, that the fixation of age limit is a relevant criteria and therefore, the same cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal. The tribunal, by same cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the order impugned in these writ petitions, after noting that the earlier gazette notification dated 16. 11. 1982 as well as the present letter dated 28. 8. 1990 have not been set aside by earlier orders of the Tribunal, countenanced the claims of the respective 2nd respondent and directed the petitioners to consider them for appointment as Group "d" in respect of any future vacancies as per the rules as it stands today.

(2.) WHEN these writ petitions were taken up for hearing, mrs. Thenkodi Nelson, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed before us, the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 1638-1640 of 1996. The learned counsel further contended that those civil appeals were preferred by the Postal Department, Cochin against similar orders passed by the Tribunal, which also relate to fixation of age limit for recruitment to the post of Grade "d" service from ED postal appointees. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the said order, has stated as hereunder: "".In the recruitment Rules, it is always open to the concerned authority to fix the age limit for recruitment as well as for examination. Hence, we make it clear that we are not approving the reasoning of the Tribunal. However, considering the facts of the present case, subsequent amendment in the Rules and the fact that after the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench I (for short, "the tribunal") passed the order, the Department has issued the administrative order in conformity with the order passed by the Tribunal, these appeals are not required to be decided. Hence, these appeals stand disposed of accordingly. " The Supreme Court, having laid down the ratio that the authorities are entitled to fix the age limit for recruitment as well as for examination, applying the same to the facts of the case it will have to be held that the fixation of age limit, as per the letter dated 28. 8. 1990, impugned before the Central Administrative Tribunal, was well-justified and the same does not call for any interference. If the respective 2nd respondent have crossed the age limit, then they may not be in a position to enter into the service of the Postal Department as a Group "d" employee though they can have continuity of service as ED postal appointees till the prescribed age limit. In such circumstances, having regard to the dictum of the supreme Court, referred to above, dated 7. 8. 2003, the impugned order of the tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. .