The Court disposed of three writ petitions seeking age relaxation for Assistant Teachers. Relying on prior precedents and the Rules of 2011, the Court held that petitioners could not be granted further relaxation as they remained over-age despite existing relaxations. All petitions were dismissed.
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.
$~34, 35 & 41
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 4645/2020 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 1343/2020 CM APPL. 4648/2020 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 1344/2020 CM APPL. 4755/2020 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 1366/2020
W.P.(C) 1343/2020 & CM APPLs. 4644/2020 & 4646/2020 W.P.(C) 1344/2020 & CM APPLs. 4647/2020 & 4649/2020
Page 1 of 6
W.P.(C) 1343/2020 etc.
W.P.(C) 1366/2020 & CM APPLs. 4754/2020 & 4756/2020
Page 2 of 6
W.P.(C) 1343/2020 etc.
Madhubala was over-age by four years and few months despite giving benefit of 8 years being OBC candidate and a guest-teacher.
Page 3 of 6
W.P.(C) 1343/2020 etc.
petitioners has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this court in Raj Bala & Another Vs. GNCTD & others W.P. (C) 7240/2017 decided on 23.08.2017. She relies on paras 6, 17 & 18 of this judgment, which we reproduce below :
6. The submission of the petitioners was that there was no conscious decision taken by the Lt. Governor of Delhi to discontinue the application of the notification dated 01.11.1980 after the making of Rules of 2011. The further submission was that the general age relaxation granted by the statutory notification dated 01.11.1980 would apply with equal force, even in respect of the Rules of 2011. xxxx xxxx xxxx
17. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no conscious decision taken to do away with the age relaxation granted vide notification dated 01.11.1980, after the making of the Rules of 2011, also has no merit. This is for the reason that the Rules of 2011 have been made by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi himself in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. There is a presumption of validity attached to official acts, and it was for the petitioners to rebut the same by producing cogent material. The petitioners, apart from claiming that there was no conscious decision taken by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, not to apply the notification dated 01.11.1980 in respect of recruitment of PETs under the Rules of 2011, has not produced any material in support of the said plea. On the other hand, the respondents, in their counter affidavit before the Tribunal have specifically averred that while amending the recruitment rules for PET, vide Rules of 2011, the notification dated 01.11.1980 had been taken into account and that the Recruitment Rules for PET had been amended in consultation with the UPSC and that they were as per the DoPT norms.
18. The relaxation granted to women candidates by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor vide notification dated 01.11.1980 in
Page 4 of 6
W.P.(C) 1343/2020 etc.
exercise of powers under Rules 43 of the Delhi School Education Rules was granted when the preexisting rules were in force. With the enforcement of the amended Rules of 2011 in respect of recruitment of PETs, in our view, it could not be said that the said relaxation continued when the amended Recruitment Rules, in no uncertain terms place an upper age limit of “not exceeding 30 years” and neither the Rules of 2011, nor the DoPT instructions/guidelines provide any age relaxation to women candidates.”
| S.No. | Petitioners | Age relaxation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sushma Gupta in W.P. (C) 1343/2020 |
5 years, being guest-teacher |
| 2 | Madhubala in W.P. (C) 1344/2020 |
8 years (5 years, being guest-teacher and 3years, beingOBC candidate) |
| 3 | Nirmala Rani in W.P. (C) 1366/2020 |
10 years (5 years, being guest- teacher and 5 years, being SC candidate) |
Page 5 of 6
W.P.(C) 1343/2020 etc.
petitioners are still over-age, no relief could have been be granted to the petitioners. We find no infirmity in the order of Tribunal.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
FEBRUARY 05, 2020/ ck
Page 6 of 6
W.P.(C) 1343/2020 etc.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pending age relaxation claims can be granted despite existing recruitment rules imposing strict upper age limits.
Whether Notification dated 01.11.1980 regarding age relaxation for women continues to apply after the enforcement of Rules of 2011.
Whether the Tribunal correctly dismissed petitions where petitioners remain over-age even after permissible relaxations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raj Bala & Another Vs. GNCTD & othersReferred¶39
Raj Bala & Another Vs. GNCTD & others W.P. (C) 7240/2017
Sachin Gupta & Others Vs. DSSSBReferred¶46
Sachin Gupta & Others Vs. DSSSB, 152 (2008) DLT 378 (DB) · Who else cites this
Syed Mehedi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & othersReferred¶54
Syed Mehedi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others (W.P. (C) No.1200/2016)
DSSSB & anr. Vs. Preeti Rathi & ors.Referred¶54
DSSSB & anr. Vs. Preeti Rathi & ors. (W.P. (C)1641/2011)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sushma Gupta
Madhubala
Nirmala Rani
Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
G.S. Sistani
Anup Jairam Bhambhani
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
