Executive Notification Granting Age Relaxation Can't Override Separate Recruitment Rules Of MCD : Delhi High Court

Background Facts

The petitioner (applicant) was born on 27.04.1982 and belonged to the Unreserved category. She had been working as a Guest Teacher with the DoE, GNCTD, since 2012. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued an advertisement for the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD schools. The Recruitment Rules governing the post of Teacher (Primary) in the MCD were framed in 2011. It prescribed an upper age limit of 30 years.

The applicant relied upon a Notification dated 01.11.1980 issued by the DoE under Rule 43 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. It provided a general relaxation of ten years in the maximum age limit for recruitment to various posts of teachers in Delhi Schools for women candidates.

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking the benefit of ten years' age relaxation. The Tribunal directed the DSSSB to permit her to participate in the selection process. She appeared in the written examination and secured 123.01 marks. She was shortlisted for uploading her e-dossier, the cut-off for the Unreserved category being 117.52 marks.

Later, the Notification dated 01.11.1980 was withdrawn by the competent authority. Subsequently, the DSSSB directed the applicant to submit the certificate regarding her claim for age relaxation.

It was held by the Tribunal that the that the MCD recruitment was governed by separate Recruitment Rules and that the Notification dated 01.11.1980 could not be invoked so as to override the Recruitment Rules applicable to the post.

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the applicant approached the Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition.

It was argued by the applicant that the Notification dated 01.11.1980 was not withdrawn until 06.03.2020 and remained in force on the date of the advertisement dated 26.06.2018. It was contended that she had secured 123.01 marks, and was shortlisted for uploading her e-dossier. She secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the Unreserved category.

It was further argued that the subsequent withdrawal of the Notification on 06.03.2020 cannot retrospectively take away a right which had accrued to her on the date of the advertisement and on the date on which she participated in the selection process.

Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Richa Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. to contend that a provision granting age relaxation to women candidates would continue to operate notwithstanding its omission from a subsequent set of Recruitment Rules, where the earlier provision continued to be in force.

Further reliance was placed upon the judgment in Gauri Sharma v. Directorate of Education, to contend that since the Notification dated 01.11.1980 was operative when the recruitment process was initiated, its subsequent withdrawal could not be relied upon to deny the benefit of age relaxation.

It was further contended that the applicant satisfied all educational qualifications prescribed for the post and that her candidature should not be rejected merely on the ground of age, particularly when she has already participated in the selection process.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the Municipal Corporations are governed by constitutional scheme which are autonomous bodies. Municipal Corporations constitute a distinct tier of local self-government under Part IX-A of the Constitution of India. It was noted that the MCD is governed by its own statutory framework and service conditions, including the Recruitment Rules governing the post in question.

It was further observed that the mere existence of the Notification dated 01.11.1980 cannot by itself establish its applicability to a recruitment governed by the separate Recruitment Rules of the MCD.

The case of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. v. Satish Kumar Meena was relied upon wherein the recruitment notice itself contained a specific provision granting age relaxation to departmental candidates having at least three years' continuous service in the Government of NCT of Delhi. It was in that specific context that the Court observed that MCD is a local body of the GNCTD.

The judgment in Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. v. Seema Kapoor was also relied upon wherein the Supreme Court held that an employee of the Municipal Corporation, being an autonomous body established under a statute, could not claim such relaxation merely by treating herself as a Government servant or departmental candidate. It was further held that the existence of a promotional channel under the Recruitment Rules did not convert the employee of the Municipal Corporation into a departmental candidate for the purpose of direct recruitment.

It was further observed by the Bench that an executive instruction issued in one statutory or regulatory context cannot automatically be treated as governing every recruitment conducted within the territorial or administrative jurisdiction of Delhi, particularly when the post in question is governed by a distinct set of Recruitment Rules.

It was held by the Division Bench that an age relaxation contained in an executive instruction issued in relation to a particular regulatory framework cannot overrides separate Recruitment Rules governing another establishment.

It was further held that the mere description of MCD as a local body of the GNCTD cannot result in application of the ten-year relaxation under the 1980 Notification to the MCD Recruitment Rules, unless there is an express provision extending the claimed relaxation.

It was concluded by the Division Bench that the applicant was not entitled to claim the benefit of the Notification dated 01.11.1980 for the recruitment to the post of Teacher (Primary) in the MCD.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Counsel for the Petitioners : Ashok Agarwal, Kumar Utkarsh, Ashna Khan and Manoj Kumar, Advs.

Counsel for the Respondents : Anand Prakash, SSC along with Varsha Arya, Adv