UNION OF INDIA Vs. Y V RAVINDRANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the Union of india questioning the order of the Central administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 383 of 2007 dated 15. 07. 2008.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the respondent herein was originally appointed to the ED cadre and was promoted to the cadre of Postal Assistant on 13. 10. 1988. He was confirmed in the said post in June 2000. After he passed 3 years diploma course and qualified himself with the AMIE (Civil Degree), the applicant was selected to officiate as Junior Engineer (Civil) on deputation with effect from 09. 02. 2001. The respondent submitted number of representations requesting the authorities to conduct departmental examinations. But, however, the examinations were not conducted. Ultimately, while the respondent continued to work as Junior Engineer on deputation, a notification, dated 18. 04. 2007, for filling up of a large number of vacancies i. e. 65 posts was issued by the 1st petitioner herein. The said notification specifically stipulated that the departmental examination for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Electrical) will be held on 21st and 22nd July, 2007. The eligibility criterion for the said examination so far as is relevant here is under para-4 (b)which is as follows. " (b) All Group 'c' employees of Civil wing and Postal Wing of the department including the cadre indicated at (a) above possessing a diploma of 3 years' duration from a recognized Institution in Civil/electrical engineering and having put in a minimum of 3 years' regular service in the Department as on 1st July, 2007 shall also be eligible to appear in the departmental examination for promotion provided they are not above 40 years of age as on 01. 07. 2007. In case of sc/st candidates, the age is relaxable to 45 years as on 01. 07. 2007. The said notification was questioned by the respondent on the ground that the condition that a candidate should not be above 40 years of age as on 01. 07. 2007 seriously affects his right to be considered for the said post on the ground that the petitioners themselves have delayed selection for a long number of years and when the respondent crossed his 40 years of age as on 19. 06. 2004 the examination is now being held and, in spite of the fact that the respondent is holding the very same post on deputation from 2001 onwards and he would not be entitled to be considered on the ground of having crossed 40 years of age. The said O. A. was opposed by the petitioners by filing a counter affidavit in which it was contended that the notification was issued to fill up vacancies in respect of 65 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) and 15 posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical ). It was also contended that the respondent herein cannot, as a matter or right, seek that he should be appointed to the said post. It was also contended that merely because he crossed the age limit prescribed is no ground to challenge the recruitment conditions which are in accordance with the rules.

(3.) THE Tribunal, on considering the rival contentions on either side and keeping in view the inaction on the part of the petitioners herein in not conducting the departmental examination for a long number of years and in spite of the fact that the respondent herein has been working for more than 7 years on deputation in the same post and for no fault of his he had been deprived of the opportunity to compete for the promotional quota post, pending the said O. A. , directed the petitioners herein to permit the respondent herein to appear for the departmental examination in pursuance of the impugned notification and it was also stipulated that the ultimate selection would be subject to the outcome of the O. A. The Tribunal felt that since the department failed to conduct examination every year despite vacancies being available and candidates being available, the stipulation of maximum age limit for the departmental candidates is clearly illogical. The Tribunal also found that since the respondent herein was working in the said post for more than 7 years, exclusion of his candidature from consideration on the ground of age bar is illegal and consequently declared the stipulation of the maximum age limit in the notification as illegal and invalid and consequential directions were issued to the department to include the name of the respondent herein in the list of selected candidates on the basis of performance in the departmental examination held on 21/22. 07. 2007. With the direction as above since the O. A. was allowed declaring the maximum age limit under the impugned notification as invalid, the petitioners have approached this Court by this petition questioning the aforesaid view of the tribunal.