LAWS(APH)-2001-11-69

UNION OF INDIA Vs. SYED GAYAZ CHISTY

Decided On November 22, 2001
UNION OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY Appellant
V/S
SYED GAYAZ CHISTY, HELPER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, NELLORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India and its authorities who are the petitioners in this writ petition, being aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad (for short 'the CAT') dated 31-3-1998 made in O.A.No.656 of 1995 have filed this writ petition.

(2.) The 1st respondent herein is the applicant in O.A.No.656 of 1995. In the O.A., the 1st respondent assailed the validity of the Notification No. B/P (RC) 563/GDCE/ VOL.1 dated 16-1-1995 issued by the 3rd petitioner herein calling for applications from the eligible candidates to fill-up the vacancies through General Departmental Competitive Examination ('GDCE' for short) for filling up the vacancies of Pro- Commercial Clerk, Pro-Ticket Collector and Pro. ASMs against 25% of the Direct Recruitment Quota. The notification prescribed 40 years as the maximum age limit for General/O.C. Candidates and 45 years for S.C. and S.T. candidates as on 20-8-1993. The petitioner had also assailed another notification bearing No. B/P.563/ GDCE/VOL.I dated 31-1-1995 issued by the Vijayawada Division fixing the date of examination. The 1st respondent assailed the validity of the above notification because as on 20-8-1993 he was more than 40 years of age, he being the candidate belonging to open category. The learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application by its order dated 31-3-1998. The operative portion of the order reads, thus:

(3.) Smt. Pushpinder Kaur, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways while assailing the correctness of the decision of the CAT, would maintain that the prescription of age qualification for any post by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion is very much within the domain of the discretion of the Employer and the cut-off date prescribed by the Recruiting Agency that the General/O.C. candidate should not have completed the age of 40 years as on 20-8-1993 cannot be faulted and therefore, by allowing the Original Application of the 1st respondent, the CAT has exceeded its jurisdiction. The learned Counsel would also submit that as a matter of fact, the Recruiting Agency has shown a concession by relaxing the age qualification by fixing 40 years of age in the case of General/ O.C. Candidates and 45 years of age in the case of SC and ST candidates, and but for this concession, no candidate who is aged more than 25 years could be considered for appointment to the post of Ticket Collector by way of direct recruitment against 66-2/3% earmarked under Rule 127(i) of the Rules for the Recruitment and Training of Group "C" and Group "D" and Workshop Staff of the Indian Railways. The learned Standing Counsel would place reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Dr. Amilal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan and others and Shamkant Narayan Deshpande v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and another.