9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent, who was appointed on a short-term contract basis, can be considered a Government servant. 2. Whether the respondent is entitled to age relaxation for the post of Drugs Inspector under the relevant recruitment rules. 3. Validity of the Tribunal's and High Court's decisions regarding the respondent's eligibility for age relaxation and subsequent appointment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the respondent, who was appointed on a short-term contract basis, can be considered a Government servant: The Supreme Court examined the nature of the respondent's employment to determine if he could be classified as a Government servant. The respondent was appointed as a Drugs Inspector on a short-term contract basis, with the contract being renewed every six months for over five years. The Court referred to the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, specifically Rule 2(h), which defines a Government servant. The Court also reviewed several precedents, including *State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta* and *State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal*, which outlined the attributes of a civil post and the relationship between a master and servant. The Court concluded that the respondent's appointment did not meet the criteria for a Government servant. His appointment was purely contractual, de hors the rules, and lacked the incidents of a regular Government service, such as entitlement to casual or earned leave, general provident fund, pension, suspension allowance, and protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the respondent is entitled to age relaxation for the post of Drugs Inspector under the relevant recruitment rules: The relevant recruitment rules allow an upper age limit relaxation of up to five years for Government servants. The respondent, having become over-age by two years, sought an age relaxation certificate to apply for the regular post of Drugs Inspector. The Tribunal initially allowed the respondent to appear for the interview provisionally but later dismissed his application, stating that the age relaxation was intended for regular Government servants, not those appointed on an ad hoc basis. The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal's view, emphasizing that the respondent, being a contractual employee, did not qualify for age relaxation under the recruitment rules. The Court held that the High Court's decision to direct the issuance of an age relaxation certificate was erroneous. 3. Validity of the Tribunal's and High Court's decisions regarding the respondent's eligibility for age relaxation and subsequent appointment: The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's application for age relaxation, and the High Court reversed this decision, directing the issuance of an age relaxation certificate and considering the respondent's claim for appointment. The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's judgment and found it legally unsound. The Supreme Court reiterated that the respondent's contractual appointment did not entitle him to the status of a Government servant, and thus, he was not eligible for age relaxation. The Court set aside the High Court's order, upholding the Tribunal's decision. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and dismissing the respondent's writ petition. The Court held that the respondent, being a contractual employee, was not a Government servant and was not entitled to age relaxation for the post of Drugs Inspector.
|
