Dismissed

Const Amit Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/1468/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenging the validity of CRPF Recruitment Amendment Rules 2014 regarding reduced age relaxation for OBC/SC/ST departmental candidates and connected signals were dismissed. The court found no irrationality in the uniform application of age norms to all departmental candidates.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed with no orders as to costs; challenge to age relaxation norms rejected.

Const Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

CM 44940/2018 (delay) in W.P.(C) 1468/2018 CM 44939/2018 (delay) in W-PiO 1866/2018

¶3

The delay of one day in filing rejoinderis condoned.The applicationsare disposed of.

¶4

W.P.(C) 1468/2018 W.P.(C) 1866/2018 W.P.(C) 3669/2018

¶5

¶6

¶7

The challengein the present three writ petitions by the five Petitionersis to the validity of the CRPF Group 'C (GeneralDuty/Technical/Tradesman) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2014 to the extent of the age relaxation for departmentalcandidates belonging to OBC/ SC/ ST category. The petitionalso seeks the quashing of two signals dated 29'^ April, 2016 and 10^*" March, 2016 wherebythe case of the Petitionersfor remusteration as drivers in the CRPF has been negatived.

¶8

These Petitionersjoined the CRPF as Constables (GD) between IS^" October,2004 and 11^^ September2006. By the time they sat for and cleared the Driver & Mechanics tests, which was a pre-requisite for remusteration as drivers, the earher CRPF Recruitment Rules, 2010 stood amended by the impugned Amendment Rules, 2014.

¶9

One major change brought about by the 2014 Amendment Rules is that while the 2010 Rules provided for age relaxation for OBC candidates up to 33 years for the purposes of remusteration as drivers, under the 2014 Amendment Rules, this age relaxation for the departmental candidates was reduced to 30 years without any distinction being made between the general

¶10

W.P.(C)1468/2018 & connected matters

¶11

Page 2 of 4

¶12

¶13

and reserved category i.e. SC/ST/OB.C.

¶14

The Petitioners all belong to OBC category, and are aggrieved by the Amendment Rules of 2014 on one short ground. They say that while for direct recruits, in the post of drivers, there is still an age relaxation still given up to three years for the reserved category candidates, for the departmental candidates the earlier age relaxation norm has been replaced by one uniform norm which caps it at 30 years irrespective of whether the candidate is SC, ST, OBC or the open category,

¶15

The Petitionerscannotpossiblyclaim any fundamentalright to relaxation of age norms. As already noted, under the Amendment Rules of 2014, such relaxation provided to the departmental candidates has been made uniform for all candidates i.e. without any distinction between SC/ST/OBC or an open candidate.Therefore,for all categoriesof departmentalcandidates,the maximum age relaxationis 27 years plus 3 years i.e. 30 years. The Court sees no irrationalityin this change which applies across the board. While there may be a policy for providing age relaxation for SC/ST/OBC candidatesat the direct recruitmentlevel i.e. the entry level, a uniform the age relaxation for all departmental candidates without distinction for differentreservedcategoriescannot be said to irrational.Consequently,this Court finds no merit in the challengeto the 2014 AmendmentRules.

¶16

By the impugnedorders, the. Respondentshave merely correctedan error that crept in while consideringthe candidatureof the present Petitioners after they qualifiedin the D&M Exams. The Respondentsappliedthe 2010 Rules insteadof the 2014 AmendedRules. That eiTor has been rectifiedby

¶17

W.P.(C)1468/2018&connectedmatters

Page3of4

1/1

the impugned orders.