IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.830 of 2006)
Union of India & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Shri Ramesh Singh Rajput ...Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, dismissing
the writ petition filed by the appellants.
3. Factual background facts in a nutshell is as follows:
The appellant No.2 herein invited applications for
several posts including the post of Cook by Employment/
Recruitment Notice published in the Employment News
dated 19-25th October, 2002. The upper age limit in regard
to unreserved category candidate was mentioned as 25 yrs.
Respondent furnished his date of birth as 17.3.1978 and on
that basis he was selected. The School Certificate and other
records showed the date of birth as 17.3 1977. Respondent
claimed that he did not suppress any facts and he disclosed
all the material facts in regard to his date of birth and had
also filed an affidavit stating that his date of birth was
17.3.1978 and he had sought for correction of date of birth
in the School Records. However, as he was found to be over
25 years, with reference to the date of birth in the School
Records, though selected, he was not appointed.
Feeling aggrieved by his non-appointment, though
selected, the Respondent herein filed O.A. No.322/2003
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench
2
(in short `CAT’) seeking a direction to the appellants herein
to appoint him as Cook. One of the grounds urged by him
by amending the applications was that the Central Civil
Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limits for Direct
Recruitment) Rules, 1998 (‘Rules’ for short) which came
into force on 1.4.1999 had increased the upper age limit for
recruitment by the method of “Direct Open Competitive
Examination” to the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts
specified in the relevant Service/Recruitment Rules, by two
years. He contended that he was entitled to the benefit of
said increase and if two years was added, he would fulfill
the age recruitment even if the date of birth is taken as
17.3.1977.
4. CAT allowed the application holding that the Rules
applied to the post for Cook for which the respondent had
applied and the applicant was entitled to relaxation by two
years under the said rules and if such age relaxation is
accorded, his selection would be valid.
3
5. Appellant questioned the correctness of the CAT’s order
by filing a writ petition which came to be dismissed by the
High Court of the impugned order.
6. Appellants’s stand before the High Court was that the
said rules applied only to recruitment through direct
competitive examination conducted by the Union Public
Service Commission (in short `UPSC’) and the Staff Selection
Commission (in short `SCC’). The recruitment in Indian Air
Force is not through Central Agency but by a Board
constituted by the Commanding Officer of the Station/Units
and, therefore, the Rules did not apply.
7. The High Court found that the recruitment was by direct
recruitment though it was not by the UPSC/SCC but authority
under the Central Government. Therefore, the CAT rightly
held that the Rules were applicable. The High Court found no
substance in the plea about the false declaration of age and
non-applicability of the Rules.
4
8. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the admitted position is that
according to his own affidavit, he has mentioned his date of
birth to be 17.3.1978 and in the application form on the basis
of the matriculation certificate it was mentioned as 17.3.1977.
CAT accepted that the correction of date of birth could have
been done only by moving an appropriate application before
the concerned authorities or the Education board. Having so
observed, the CAT held that this case is of relaxation.
9. It was contended that since the respondent himself did
not claim any relaxation at any stage, and gave false
declaration about his age, therefore, the view of the CAT and
the High Court is unsustainable.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that there was no wrong declaration. In fact, in the
form and the affidavit both the dates were indicated.
5
11. From the record it appears that the authority did not
issue any appointment order to the respondent on the ground
that he gave a false date of birth. Stand of the respondent
before CAT was that it appears from the application filed
before it is that the date of birth of the respondent is
17.3.1978. In an annexure he claimed it to be 17.3.1978. The
appellants knew about this date and, therefore, held him to be
qualified candidate and, therefore, he was interviewed by the
Selection Committee and found suitable. Having proceeded in
that manner it was not open to the appellants to deny
appointment.
12. It appears that the CAT itself accepted that the question
of correcting date of birth was not within the domain of the
appellants and it was open to the respondent to move
appropriate authority in that regard. Having said so, CAT held
that there was scope for relaxation. There were no pleadings
in that regard. As a matter of fact, there is no reference even
to the relaxation aspect in the application before CAT. For the
first time such stand was taken during the hearing before the
6
CAT. The High Court unfortunately did not consider this
aspect.
13. Therefore, the orders of the CAT and the High Court are
unsustainable and are quashed. It will be open to the
respondent to move to the authority for relaxation if he is so
advised. It shall be open to the authorities to pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law. We do not express
any opinion about the acceptability or otherwise if prayer for
relaxation is made.
14. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any
order as to costs.
………………………….J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
………………………….J.
(AFTAB ALAM)
New Delhi,
December 14, 2007
7