Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Petitioner on a writ petition has challenged the respondents’ order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi dismissing O.A.No.3805/2014 for rejecting his request to be granted age relaxation in order to qualify for the post of Special Education Teacher in Delhi government schools. He also challenged the policy of NCT of Delhi for the recruitment of Special Education Teacher (SET) wherein an age relaxation of 10 years was provided for the female candidates and no such benefit of relaxation was given to the male candidates, despite a large number of positions being vacant. Based on the judgment in Social Jurist Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) 16 DLT 498 directing the respondents to take steps to recruit special educators in all schools managed by the state government and other local bodies a policy was made. Notification was given regarding this and was later cancelled. Again a new notification was issued and the petitioner has applied for it and was rejected on age bar. The application was dismissed by the tribunal and the petitioner has approached the Court on the in ordinary delay by the government for the post of SET. The court directed the respondent to accept the petitioners request due to the delay in the initiation of recruitment process. This order was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that no case has been made for the relaxation of age regarding the male candidates and also argued that it is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe the process of selection and the court cannot entertain such matters. Further contended that age relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The court opined that though the power is vested on the executives, they cannot act arbitrarily. Reasons must be noted for grant and refusal of relaxation. The court also cited section 3 of the Right to Education Act and sections 16 and 17 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to highlight the statutory duty vested on the executives. Even though, it is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe the recruitment procedure, they also have a statutory duty to subsequently fill the post with qualified persons even if it implies the grant of age relaxation to a certain extent. The court finally relied on the ratio laid down by the apex court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India to provide age relaxation to the petitioner and consider his appointment with all the benefits he is entitled with. It was held by the Delhi High Court that court can intervene when the competent authority takes its decision arbitrarily, unreasonably and without paying attention to the reasonable matters. Also held that it can also direct the said authority to exercise its power in a certain manner.
86540
103860
630
114
59824