Contractual government employees qualify for advertised age relaxation absent express exclusion of non-regular staff.

The applicant, born on 19 August 1983, had been continuously working as an Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) on a contractual basis under the Integrated District Health Society, Government of NCT of Delhi, since 17 December 2007.

Pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2014 for the post of ANM, Post Code 14/14, she applied under the Unreserved category and claimed the advertised age relaxation up to 35 years available to government servants/departmental candidates.

She qualified in the written examination held on 26 April 2015 and was called for document verification.

After being asked to substantiate her claim for age relaxation, she submitted an experience certificate and No Objection Certificate confirming her contractual service.

DSSSB sought clarification from her employer regarding the nature of her appointment, and, after receiving confirmation that she was a contractual employee, rejected her candidature on 27 February 2019 on the ground that she was over-aged in the Unreserved category.

The applicant challenged the rejection before the Tribunal, contending that the advertisement did not expressly restrict the age relaxation to regular or permanent employees.

The respondents argued that contractual service did not confer the status of a government servant and that the relaxation was intended only for regular employees holding sanctioned posts.

Whether a contractual employee continuously serving under a government health society is entitled to age relaxation extended to government servants or departmental candidates where the recruitment advertisement does not expressly restrict the benefit to regular or permanent employees.

Whether the rejection of the applicant’s candidature as over-aged in the Unreserved category was legally sustainable.

The Tribunal applied the principle laid down in Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup & Ors., (2008) 11 SCC 10, that, in the absence of a restrictive definition, the term “employee” ordinarily includes permanent, temporary, regular, short-term, contractual and ad hoc employees; therefore, contractual employees cannot be excluded from age relaxation merely because they are not regular employees.

It also relied on All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Ruchika Madan, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12964, which recognised that contractual employees of public institutions may claim age relaxation where the governing advertisement does not expressly exclude them.

The governing legal principle was that an eligibility benefit expressly extended to government or departmental employees must be interpreted according to the language of the advertisement, and a limitation to regular or permanent employees cannot be judicially introduced when the notification contains no such restriction.

The Tribunal found that Advertisement No. 01/2014 granted age relaxation up to 35 years to government servants and MCD employees but did not state that the benefit was confined to regular or permanent personnel.

Applying Jamuna Kurup, it held that the applicant’s continuous contractual service under a government health society fell within the broader meaning of employment for the purpose of age relaxation.

The applicant had served since 2007, performed work substantially identical to the advertised ANM post, and qualified in the written examination on merit.

Accordingly, the respondents could not deny the benefit solely because her appointment was contractual.

The rejection based on her contractual status was therefore inconsistent with the advertisement and the applicable legal principles.

The respondents were directed to grant her age relaxation by taking into account her continuous contractual service under the Integrated District Health Society.

DSSSB was directed to process her result under the Unreserved category and, if she was otherwise eligible and fell within the order of merit, recommend her appointment to the concerned municipal authority; the authority was thereafter directed to issue the appointment offer.

She was granted notional seniority from the date of appointment of her immediate junior, but no back wages, with the entire exercise to be completed within eight weeks.