2003 (9) TMI 775 - SC - Indian Laws

Court affirms age limit for Assistant District Attorney in Chandigarh

UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS. Versus RAJESH KUMAR BASANDHI AND ANR.

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the maximum age limit for the post of Assistant District Attorney/Law Officer in the Union Territory ... Whether appointment of the appellant to the post of Assistant District Attorney/Law Officer valid? Whether persons appointed to the services of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, their conditions of service shall be governed by the same rules and orders as applicable for the time being to the corresponding posts in the Punjab Civil Services? Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the expression 'for the time being' in the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1992.2. Applicability of amendments to the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1989 to the Union Territory of Chandigarh.3. Validity of the age limit for recruitment to the post of Assistant District Attorney/Law Officer.4. Impact of the Tribunal's interim order allowing the respondent to appear in the examination.5. Consequences of the respondent's merit position in the selection process.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of the expression 'for the time being':The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the phrase 'for the time being' as used in the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1992. The Tribunal relied on various legal dictionaries and judicial interpretations to conclude that the phrase generally refers to an indefinite period of time and can vary depending on the context. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, agreeing that the phrase should be understood in its general sense, indicating an indefinite state of facts that may vary from time to time.2. Applicability of amendments to the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1989:The appellant argued that amendments to the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1989 would not automatically apply to the Union Territory of Chandigarh unless specifically adopted. The Tribunal, however, held that subsequent amendments to the Punjab Civil Services Rules would be applicable to Chandigarh's recruitment process. The Supreme Court supported this view, stating that the general meaning of 'for the time being' implies that the conditions of service, as they exist at the time of application, should be applied, including any amendments.3. Validity of the age limit for recruitment:The respondent's candidature was initially rejected because he was 33 years old, exceeding the 30-year age limit specified in the recruitment notification. The Tribunal found that the maximum age limit should be 35 years, as per the latest amendment to the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, noting that the phrase 'for the time being' includes subsequent amendments, thus making the 35-year age limit applicable.4. Impact of the Tribunal's interim order:The Tribunal had allowed the respondent to appear in the examination through an interim order but withheld the final result. The Supreme Court did not find any issue with this interim order, as it was consistent with the Tribunal's final decision that the age limit should be 35 years.5. Consequences of the respondent's merit position:The appellant informed the Court that the respondent's merit position was low, and he had no chance of appointment based on the available vacancies. The respondent, however, had challenged the selection result on other grounds in a separate case pending before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court refrained from commenting on this matter, noting that the question of appointment would arise only if the respondent received a favorable decision in his pending case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the maximum age limit for the post of Assistant District Attorney/Law Officer should be 35 years. The Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and discharged the stay order granted earlier. The interpretation of 'for the time being' was affirmed to mean an indefinite period, allowing for the application of subsequent amendments to the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The respondent's challenge to the selection result was left to be decided in the pending case before the Tribunal.