Summary
The Court upheld the 35-year age ceiling for the advertised Rehbar-e-Taleem appointment. Reading the scheme’s qualification as discretionary would permit arbitrary relaxation contrary to equal opportunity; the later age-relaxation notification did not govern the earlier selection. The eligible challenger’s appointment was sustained, but both candidates could not occupy the single advertised post. The overage incumbent was instead to be accommodated in another vacancy by a fresh appointment, without earlier benefits beyond salary and allowances already paid for services rendered.
Issues
- Whether the scheme’s age requirement was mandatory despite the words “as far as possible”.
- Whether later age relaxation applied to the earlier selection.
- How the two candidates’ appointments should be treated where only one post was advertised.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaUniform eligibility and equal opportunity required treating the scheme’s upper age limit as mandatory rather than allowing unfettered executive relaxation. (¶ 8)
Held
- The selection began with the November 2002 advertisement and used the prescribed January 2002 cut-off. The notification relaxing age for the period commencing January 2003 could not be applied to that earlier selection. The selected candidate exceeded the applicable 35-year ceiling. (¶ 5)
- The words “as far as possible” had to be understood in the setting of public recruitment. Treating the upper age limit as directory would confer unbridled power to choose candidates through arbitrary relaxation and undermine uniform eligibility. The different interpretation of similar words in a Letters Patent rule-making provision did not control this scheme. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- The eligible challenger was rightly directed to be appointed. The High Court could not simultaneously continue the overage incumbent against the same single advertised post. That continuance direction was set aside. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- Given the incumbent’s lengthy service, the State was directed to accommodate her in another vacancy by fresh appointment. She was denied pre-appointment benefits apart from salary and allowances already received for work performed. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Result
Appeal disposed of. Challenger’s appointment upheld; incumbent’s continuance on the same post set aside, with accommodation in another vacancy by fresh appointment on the stated benefits limitation.