SEEMA RAMCHANDANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is arising against the orders dtd. 24/9/2021 and 29/10/2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, 'the CAT') in Original Application No. 73/2020. By way of said orders, the petitioner's candidature for the post of Dietician was rejected on the ground of being over age.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned CAT has wrongly placed reliance upon para B(b) of the advertisement which is not applicable in the instant case. Rather, the case is covered by para B(a) of the advertisement, which is in consonance with the ESIC Recruitment Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter, 'the Regulations'). It is further submitted that the office memorandum, relied upon by the respondents cannot be allowed to operate contrary to the statutory provisions. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner falls within the category of 'Government Servant', as specified in the advertisement and is entitled for age relaxation upto 37 years in terms of the Regulations as well as in terms of the conditions of advertisement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the original application as well as review application were rejected by the learned CAT on 24/9/2021 and 29/10/2021 respectively, after considering the Regulations issued by the concerned Department on account of the applicant being over-age and not fulfilling the conditions for relaxation of age. He has further submitted that on verification of petitioner's documents, it was observed that the petitioner was engaged on the post of Dietitian on "urgent temporary basis" in SMS Medical College and therefore she does not qualify for the selection, as for appointment of Group-C post in direct recruitment, three years continuous service with Government is mandatory. The petitioner admittedly was lacking the same and therefore her candidature was not considered.