Summary
The Court held that a Municipal Corporation primary teacher was not entitled to the five-year age relaxation for government servants or departmental candidates in the 2012 direct recruitment to PGT English. She worked in an autonomous statutory body, rather than the recruiting Education Department. Her eligibility for a promotion channel did not make her a departmental candidate for direct recruitment. The Tribunal and High Court orders granting relaxation were set aside.
Issues
- Whether municipal employment or eligibility for promotion qualified the respondent for departmental age relaxation in the particular direct recruitment.
Held
- The governing advertisement was the 2012 advertisement. The High Court had relied on wording from a subsequent 2016 recruitment, which could not govern this selection. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 8)
- The respondent was an employee of a statutory Municipal Corporation rather than a government servant or employee of the concerned Education Department. The applicable Central Government circular expressly excluded personnel of autonomous bodies and public-sector undertakings from its age-relaxation instructions. She qualified under neither advertised category. (¶¶ 5, 6, 8)
- A promotion channel under the recruitment rules was distinct from the direct recruitment at issue. Eligibility to be considered for promotion on the prescribed basis did not confer departmental-candidate status or the claimed age relaxation in this selection. (¶¶ 7, 9)
- The employer’s appeal was allowed and both the Tribunal’s and High Court’s orders were set aside. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeal allowed; Tribunal and High Court orders granting age relaxation set aside.