9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1227 - SC - Indian LawsAppointment for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police - Though, the Appellant herein had participated in the selection process and she not only qualified at each stage of the examination process, her name was still not included in the list of successful candidates for the said post. HELD THAT - The Appellant was entitled to age relaxation as per Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 read with State Services Examination, 2003. She was, therefore, eligible to be considered for the post of Dy. S.P. The facts narrated above reveal that she participated in the selection process and in the merit list prepared, she was placed at Serial No. 54. Persons below her in the merit list have been appointed. She was excluded only because of alleged age bar since we find that this impediment would not come in her way, the present appeal warrants to be allowed. The direction is issued to the Respondents to appoint the Appellant as Dy. S.P. w.e.f. the date her juniors in the merit list, namely, Tarkeshwar Patel and Ranu Sahu are appointed. Her seniority and pay shall be fixed on that basis. However, she will not be allowed to make any claim for salary for the intervening period otherwise the intervening period shall count for all other purposes. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved
1. Eligibility for age relaxation for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. S.P.) under the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 (Rules, 2000). 2. Applicability of age relaxation for women under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 (Rules, 1997). 3. Relevance of the State Services Examination Rules, 2003 (Examination Rules, 2003). 4. Validity of the recruitment process under the Rules, 2000 versus the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 (Rules, 2005). Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Eligibility for Age Relaxation under Rules, 2000 The appellant participated in the selection process for the post of Dy. S.P. but was not included in the final list of successful candidates due to exceeding the upper age limit of 25 years as stipulated by the Rules, 2000. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing for age relaxation on the grounds of being a government servant, but her claim was dismissed by both the single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court concluded that since she joined the government service after the cut-off date, she was not entitled to age relaxation under Rule 8 of the Rules, 2000. Issue 2: Applicability of Age Relaxation under Rules, 1997 The appellant later claimed age relaxation under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1997, which provides a ten-year age relaxation for women candidates for direct appointments to all posts in the services under the State. The High Court dismissed this claim, holding that Rule 8 of the Rules, 2000, which does not provide for such relaxation, would prevail. The Supreme Court, however, found that Rules, 1997, being specific rules designed to benefit women candidates, should apply universally to all public service posts, including Dy. S.P., unless explicitly excluded. Issue 3: Relevance of Examination Rules, 2003 The Examination Rules, 2003, under which the competitive examination for the post of Dy. S.P. was conducted, also specifically provided for a ten-year age relaxation for women candidates as per Rules, 1997. The Supreme Court emphasized that these rules, which were applicable to the examination in question, should be considered in conjunction with Rules, 1997, thereby entitling the appellant to the age relaxation. Issue 4: Validity of Recruitment Process under Rules, 2000 versus Rules, 2005 The recruitment process was initiated under the Rules, 2000, before the promulgation of the Rules, 2005. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the recruitment was rightly conducted under the Rules, 2000, as the process began with requisitions sent before the Rules, 2005 came into force. However, the Supreme Court also noted that the Rules, 2005, which explicitly provide for age relaxation for women, reflect the consistent intention of the rule-making authorities to extend such benefits to women candidates. Conclusion The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to age relaxation under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1997, read with the Examination Rules, 2003. The Court directed the respondents to appoint the appellant as Dy. S.P. with retrospective effect from the date her juniors in the merit list were appointed, ensuring her seniority and pay were fixed accordingly, though she would not be entitled to back pay for the intervening period. Separate Judgments Both judges, A.K. Sikri and Abhay Manohar Sapre, delivered concurring judgments. Justice Sapre agreed with the reasoning and conclusions of Justice Sikri, emphasizing the importance of encouraging women's participation in state services and aligning with the spirit of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
|
