Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by The Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. (ECIL) against a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, which allowed the respondents' writ appeal and directed ECIL to permit them to participate in the selection process for Tradesman-B posts with age relaxation up to 40 years. The respondents had filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking age relaxation under Notification No.38 of 2017, claiming they had worked with ECIL through an outsourcing agency since 2010 and had passed ITI and completed National Apprenticeship Certificate in ECIL itself. The notification prescribed an upper age limit of 28 years for unreserved candidates, with relaxation up to 40 years for those who worked or were working with ECIL as Senior Artisan/Junior Artisan with ITI qualification plus NAC or ITI qualification plus experience of tenure based contract. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 04.01.2018, observing that the respondents approached the court at the last moment and the software did not accept applications without a code number for those who worked on tenure based contract. The Division Bench, however, allowed the appeal on 08.03.2018, directing ECIL to permit the respondents to participate in the selection process scheduled for 11.03.2018. The Supreme Court, hearing ECIL's appeal, noted that the respondents were engaged through an outsourcing agency and thus did not fall within the category eligible for age relaxation. The Court also observed that the Division Bench did not consider the merits of the claim and passed directions after the application period had expired. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's judgment, and restored the Single Judge's order, holding that the respondents were not entitled to age relaxation.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Age Relaxation - Eligibility - The respondents, engaged through an outsourcing agency, were not entitled to age relaxation up to 40 years under Notification No.38 of 2017, as the relaxation was only for those who worked or were working with ECIL as Senior Artisan/Junior Artisan with ITI qualification plus NAC or ITI qualification plus experience of tenure based contract. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench erred in granting relief without considering the distinction between direct contract employees and outsourced agency workers (Paras 8-9). B) Service Law - Recruitment - Laches - The advertisement was issued on 19.12.2017 with last date 05.01.2018; the writ petition was filed on 02.01.2018. The Single Judge rightly dismissed the petition as the respondents approached the court at the last moment. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench's direction to permit participation after the period was over was incorrect (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents, who were engaged through an outsourcing agency, were entitled to age relaxation up to 40 years under the recruitment notification issued by the appellant-Corporation.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside. Order dated 04.01.2018 of the Single Judge in Writ Petition No.382 of 2018 restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Age relaxation eligibility
- Distinction between direct contract employees and outsourced agency workers
- Judicial review of recruitment notifications
- Laches in approaching court
