Dismissed

Raj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Sept 2017W.P.(C)/3715/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi dismissed a writ petition challenging the deletion of age relaxation for sportsmen in a Delhi Police recruitment advertisement. Relying on a Division Bench judgment and the Tribunal's order, the Court held that Rule 5(c) was merely enabling, creating no right to age relaxation, and upheld the policy shift to promote in-house talent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the corrigendum deleting age relaxation for sportsmen and the amendment to the Rules was dismissed.

Raj Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~5.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 3715/2015 and CM APPL. 6617/2015 RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, Mr. A.K. Sharma & Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Advocates.

¶4

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Ms. Santwana, Advocates for respondent/ UOI. Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for respondents/ GNCTD.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶6

¶7

O R D E R 19.09.2017

¶8

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.1609/2013. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, had dismissed a batch of Original Applications, including that of the petitioner.

¶9

The petitioner had approached the Tribunal to assail the deletion of the provision for grant of age relaxation, which had been initially granted for the category of Sportsmen in the advertisement dated 13.03.2013 issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in

¶10

Delhi Police. The petitioner is a sportsman, who claims to have represented the State at the National-level, and the country at the International-level.

¶11

Under the initial advertisement, for the candidates like the petitioner belonging to SC/ST category, an age relaxation of up to 10 years was admissible. By grant of the said age relaxation, the petitioner became eligible, since he was 32 years of age on the cut-off date, and the normal age limit prescribed in the advertisement was between 20-25 years. However, subsequently, vide a corrigendum issued by the SSC on 09.04.2013, under clause (vi) “ Age relaxation for sportsman of distinction of national/ international level in the category codes Nos. 36, 37 & 38 (for Delhi Police only) mentioned in para 4 (B) of the notice of examination ” stood deleted. The case of the petitioner is that he fell in category code No.37 of the initial advertisement.

¶12

The aforesaid withdrawal of age relaxation in respect of the sportsman was, admittedly, undertaken before the closing date, which was 12.04.2013. It was based on amendment to Rules 7 and 14(a) of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The petitioner and other applicants assailed the action of the respondents in issuing the corrigendum, making several changes in the initial advertisement, including in respect of the age relaxation to sportsmen. Challenge was also raised to the amendment carried out in the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed all the Original Applications. Pertinently, this Court upheld the impugned order of the Tribunal in a batch of writ petitions, including W.P. (C.) No. 2034/2015 decided on 20.04.2017. The case of the petitioner was, however, segregated

¶13

only for the reason that his was the only case concerning age relaxation to a sportsperson.

¶14

We have heard learned counsels and perused the decision of the Division Bench.

¶15

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 5(c) of the aforesaid rules, inter alia, provides that “ Appointments to the force shall be subject to the orders, issued by the Govt. of India from time to time regarding special representation in the service for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Ex-servicemen, Outstanding sportsmen, departmental candidates, etc. ”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the duty of the respondents to make provision for special representation of, inter alia, sportsmen. He, therefore, submits that the withdrawal of the age relaxation granted to sportsmen by the amendment to the Rules and the corrigendum aforesaid, is bad and illegal.

¶16

We do not find any merit in this submission of the petitioner. As noticed hereinabove, all the submissions of the applicants, including the petitioner, were duly considered and rejected by the Tribunal as well as by this Court, inter alia, in W.P. (C.) No. 2034/2015 decided on 20.04.2017. The amendment to the Rules has been upheld by this Court. It is the said amendment, which resulted in the issuance of the corrigendum dated 09.04.2013 by the SSC.

¶17

The respondents have, in terms of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, conveyed their conscious decision in relation to the withdrawal of upper age relaxation admissible to sportspersons. The said decision has

¶18

been filed on record with the counter-affidavit, and the same reads as follows:

¶19

“ There was no provision in Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 for relaxation in age for sportspersons but as per Govt. of India’s instructions, the Delhi Police was giving relaxation in age up to 5 years for UnReserved (General)/ OBC categories and 10 years for SC/ ST category candidates who represented state at the national level and country at the international level. This provision was incorporated in the Standing Order No. 321 earlier issued by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Subsequently, it was withdrawn as it was not proving beneficial in promoting sports. Delhi Police, in order to motivate sports, came up with the provision for out of turn promotion to employees on the basis of outstanding performance in sports. Delhi Police decided to promote sports from their in-house talents and it was decided to drop the policy of age relaxation to sports persons for the post of SIs(Exe.) also.”

¶20

“2. Keeping in view the recruitment policy of the Delhi Police, the Committee is of the opinion that the demand is not justified as existing changed policy is working well for the promotion of sports and sports curricula/ physical fitness in Delhi Police. Therefore, there seems to be no need to modify Rule-5 of Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules1980 meant for implementing the direction of the Govt. relating to SC/ST, Ex-servicemen, outstanding sportsmen, departmental candidates, etc.”

¶21

The provision contained in Rule 5(c) relied upon by the petitioner is merely an enabling provision. It does not oblige the Central Government to grant reservation, or age relaxation to sportspersons.

¶22

There is no other provision relied upon by the petitioner to claim, as a

¶23

matter of right, relaxation of age for sportspersons. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that if age relaxation is not granted to sportsperson, they would be completely ousted from competition for the post in question, cannot be accepted, since sportspersons of national and international repute between the age limit of 20 and 25 years could well be available. Moreover, as per category Code Nos.1 & 2, the provision for grant of age relaxation of up to 5 years for SC/ST candidates and up to 3 years for OBC candidates still continues to be valid. Even otherwise, it is not that all such sportspersons would invariably be above 25 years of age.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

VIPIN SANGHI, J REKHA PALLI, J

¶26

SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 B.S. Rohella

Raj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ace Facility Management Services Vs Beena

Palam Jain Edn.& Welfare Socy. Vs Krishan Mohan

UOI Vs S.C. Manchanda

Tek Narain Vs UOI & Anr.

Sonal Saket Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Ganga Dutt Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

The Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs Brijesh Kumar Sahu

Archana Shastri Vs Union of India and Ors.

Patanjali Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Hardeb Bhattacharya Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Anr. Vs D K Gupta

Mahendra Singh Varma Vs Union of India and Anr.

J K Kashyap Vs Rajiv Gupta & Anr.