The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction to consider the respondent for driver post appointment, clarifying the authority to relax age limits.
Petition stood disposed of without any order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2458 OF 2008
Union of India and others. Vs.
... Petitioners
Shri Dilip Ganpat Hule ... Respondent
Ms. N.V. Masurkar for the petitioners. Mr. R.G. Walia for the respondent.
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2009
P.C.:
The present writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench dated 28 th August, 2007 wherein the Tribunal has directed as under:
“10. The respondents are directed to consider the applicant for appointment on the post of Driver on the basis of Eligibility List prepared in 2003 wherein he was shown as an eligible candidate and if he is found fit, he should be given promotion to the post of Driver.”
2 . This direction is challenged on the ground that under Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the Staff Car Drivers (Group `C' Pot) Recruitment
Rules, 2003 and the circular issued on 7 th October, 2005, the
respondent herein was more than 40 years of age as on 19 th October, 2005 and, therefore, was ineligible to be appointed to the post of Driver. However, under Rule 7, though the power is vested with the authority but that can be exercised only if he is not more than 40 years of age which would be vested in the Central Government to examine the matter. As such, the direction given by the Tribunal is contrary to law. It is not necessary for us to examine the various contentions raised before us. Suffice it to note that the direction of the Tribunal is to consider the respondent and if the petitioner do not have the authority or power to relax the age beyond 40 years, they can also refer the matter to the competent authority before the Central Government for consideration in accordance with law. We see no reason to interfere with the above clarification. Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court should interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the petitioner to consider the respondent for appointment despite staginess in age.
Union of India
Shri Dilip Ganpat Hule
Swatanter Kumar
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
