Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dheeru Nayak, was initially appointed as a Field Investigator on contract basis in the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. His contract was extended from time to time. In January 2013, the respondents issued an advertisement for the post of Field Investigator on contract basis, prescribing a maximum age limit of 30 years. The petitioner, who was over 30 years, applied but was not considered due to age. He filed O.A.No.205/2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bangalore Bench, seeking age relaxation and continuation of his services. The CAT initially allowed the O.A. on 17.06.2013, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for age relaxation. However, on a review application filed by the respondents, the CAT reviewed and set aside its earlier order on 20.11.2015, dismissing the O.A. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the review order and seeking restoration of the earlier order. The High Court examined the recruitment rules and the terms of the petitioner's contract. It noted that the advertisement clearly prescribed the age limit and that no relaxation was provided for contract employees. The court held that the petitioner had no right to claim age relaxation and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation did not apply as there was no promise or policy. The court also upheld the CAT's power to review its own order and found that the review was justified. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the CAT's order dated 20.11.2015.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Age Relaxation - Contract Employment - Recruitment Rules - The petitioner, a contract employee, sought age relaxation for the post of Field Investigator, which was denied by the respondents. The CAT initially allowed the O.A. but later reviewed and dismissed it. The High Court held that the petitioner cannot claim age relaxation as a matter of right, as the recruitment rules prescribe the maximum age limit and no relaxation was provided for contract employees. The court further held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply in the absence of any promise or policy. (Paras 1-10) B) Administrative Law - Legitimate Expectation - Contract Employment - The court examined the doctrine of legitimate expectation and held that the petitioner had no legitimate expectation to be granted age relaxation, as there was no representation or promise by the respondents. The recruitment advertisement clearly stated the age limit, and the petitioner's initial appointment was on contract basis with no assurance of extension or relaxation. (Paras 8-10) C) Central Administrative Tribunal - Review of Orders - The CAT had initially allowed the O.A. but later reviewed and dismissed it. The High Court upheld the review order, noting that the Tribunal had the power to review its own order and that the review was justified as the initial order was based on an erroneous assumption. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to age relaxation for the post of Field Investigator on contract basis, and whether the CAT order dated 20.11.2015 rejecting the claim is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20.11.2015 in O.A.No.205/2013.
Law Points
- Age relaxation
- contract employment
- legitimate expectation
- recruitment rules
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
