Supreme Court settles age limit rules for direct recruitment in civil posts: Union of India vs. Shri Ramesh Singh Rajput (2007)

Date of the Judgment: December 14, 2007

Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Aftab Alam, J.

Can the government deny appointment to a selected candidate based on a discrepancy in their date of birth records? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a case where a candidate’s school certificate and affidavit showed different dates of birth, leading to a dispute over the applicable age limit for the post of Cook in the Indian Air Force. The bench, comprising Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam, examined the application of the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limits for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998, and the implications of a candidate’s alleged false declaration of age.

Case Background

In October 2002, the appellant No. 2 (Union of India) invited applications for several posts, including that of Cook. The recruitment notice specified an upper age limit of 25 years for unreserved category candidates. Shri Ramesh Singh Rajput (the respondent) applied for the post, stating his date of birth as March 17, 1978. Based on this information, he was selected. However, his school certificate and other records indicated his date of birth as March 17, 1977. Consequently, the authorities did not appoint him because they found him to be over the age limit according to the school records.

Feeling aggrieved, Shri Ramesh Singh Rajput filed O.A. No. 322/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur Bench, seeking a direction to the appellants to appoint him as Cook. He argued that the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limits for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998, which came into effect on April 1, 1999, had increased the upper age limit for recruitment by two years. He contended that he was entitled to this relaxation, which would make him eligible even if his date of birth was taken as March 17, 1977.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the application, holding that the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limits for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998, applied to the post of Cook. CAT concluded that the respondent was entitled to a relaxation of two years under these rules, which validated his selection.

The appellants challenged the CAT’s order by filing a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT’s decision. The High Court reasoned that the recruitment was a direct recruitment under the Central Government, even though it was not conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) or the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). Therefore, the High Court found that the rules were applicable and saw no merit in the plea regarding the false declaration of age.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case revolves around the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limits for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998 (‘Rules’). These rules came into force on April 1, 1999, and they pertain to the upper age limits for direct recruitment to Central Civil Services and Civil Posts.

The respondent also invoked these rules, arguing that they increased the upper age limit for recruitment by the method of “Direct Open Competitive Examination” by two years. This increase, according to the respondent, would make him eligible for the post even if his date of birth was considered to be March 17, 1977.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India)

• 
  False Declaration of Age: The appellants argued that the respondent had provided inconsistent information regarding his date of birth. In his affidavit, he mentioned it as March 17, 1978, while the application form, based on his matriculation certificate, stated it as March 17, 1977.
• 
  Inapplicability of Rules: The appellants contended that the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limits for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998, applied only to recruitment through direct competitive examinations conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). Since the recruitment in the Indian Air Force was conducted by a board constituted by the Commanding Officer of the Station/Units, the rules did not apply.
• 
  No Claim for Relaxation: The appellants highlighted that the respondent had not claimed any relaxation at any stage and had given a false declaration about his age. Therefore, the decisions of the CAT and the High Court were unsustainable.

Arguments by the Respondent (Shri Ramesh Singh Rajput)

• 
  No Wrong Declaration: The respondent argued that there was no wrong declaration. He claimed that both dates were indicated in the form and the affidavit.
• 
  Knowledge of Correct Date: The respondent contended that the authorities knew about his date of birth being March 17, 1978. They had considered him a qualified candidate, interviewed him, and found him suitable. Therefore, it was not open to the appellants to deny him appointment.
• 
  Applicability of Age Relaxation: The respondent argued that the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limits for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998, which came into effect on April 1, 1999, increased the upper age limit for recruitment by two years. He claimed entitlement to this relaxation, which would make him eligible even if his date of birth was taken as March 17, 1977.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limits for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998, are applicable to the recruitment process in question?
2. Whether the respondent made a false declaration regarding his age?
3. Whether the respondent is entitled to age relaxation under the said rules?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite specific cases or books. However, it refers to the following legal provisions:

• Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limits for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998: These rules pertain to the upper age limits for direct recruitment to Central Civil Services and Civil Posts.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limits for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998: The court considered these rules but did not conclusively determine their applicability in this specific case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural irregularities and the lack of specific pleadings regarding age relaxation. The court noted that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had accepted that correcting the date of birth was not within the appellants’ domain and that the respondent should move the appropriate authority. However, CAT then held that there was scope for relaxation without any pleadings in that regard. The High Court did not consider this aspect, which led the Supreme Court to quash the orders of the CAT and the High Court.

Logical Reasoning:

Issue: Whether the respondent is entitled to age relaxation?

Flowchart:

No specific claim for relaxation in the original application ⬇️ CAT introduced the possibility of relaxation without proper pleadings ⬇️ High Court failed to consider the lack of pleadings ⬇️ Supreme Court quashed the orders, allowing the respondent to apply for relaxation

Key Takeaways

• 
  Accurate Information: It is crucial for candidates to provide accurate and consistent information in their application forms and affidavits.
• 
  Proper Pleadings: Parties must include all relevant claims and grounds in their pleadings before the court or tribunal.
• 
  Age Relaxation: Authorities have the discretion to consider age relaxation based on applicable rules and regulations.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the respondent to move to the authority for relaxation, if so advised. It also stated that it would be open to the authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, without expressing any opinion about the acceptability or otherwise if a prayer for relaxation is made.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the courts should not introduce new grounds for relief without proper pleadings from the parties. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural norms and ensuring that all claims are properly raised and supported by evidence.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court quashed the orders of the CAT and the High Court, emphasizing the importance of accurate information, proper pleadings, and adherence to procedural norms. The court allowed the respondent to apply for age relaxation, leaving the decision to the concerned authorities.