Delhi High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Rejection of Age and Education Relaxation for MTS Post in Delhi Police, Criticizes Lack of Reasoning and Orders Fresh Review

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court quashed the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order rejecting the petitioner’s request for age and educational qualification relaxation for a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) position in the Delhi Police. The court found that the Tribunal’s order lacked independent reasoning and required re-evaluation.

Facts

The petitioner was intermittently engaged as a sweeper with the Delhi Police since 1997, claiming to have worked on a casual basis with breaks. His employment had been informal, and his services were reportedly utilized for maintaining cleanliness at the police station without any official appointment or remuneration from the Delhi Police payroll. The petitioner sought absorption in a permanent role and applied for age and educational relaxation to meet the eligibility for the MTS position advertised in 2017.

Issues

The primary issues were:

1. Whether the petitioner’s service history justified age and educational relaxation for the MTS role.
2. The validity of the Tribunal’s rejection of the petitioner’s plea without adequate reasoning.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued for age and educational relaxation, emphasizing his prolonged, albeit informal, association with the Delhi Police and citing precedents that support regularization and relaxation for long-term temporary or casual workers.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents contended that no official records supported the petitioner’s claim of engagement or appointment with the Delhi Police. They maintained that his services were used on an ad-hoc, need-basis without any formal employment status, making him ineligible for age or education relaxation for the MTS post.

Analysis of the Law

The High Court reviewed the legal basis for age and educational relaxations and the requirements for considering informal employment histories in government employment applications. It noted that the absence of formal records or letters of appointment posed a challenge in meeting the criteria for regularization and relaxation.

Precedent Analysis

The petitioner cited judgments, including State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L. Kesari and S.K. Chaudhary & Ors vs. GNCT Delhi, which emphasized the regularization of workers engaged for prolonged periods in temporary roles. However, the court found these precedents inapplicable due to the lack of official records confirming the petitioner’s engagement.

Court’s Reasoning

The court observed that the Tribunal’s dismissal of the petitioner’s plea was not supported by sufficient reasoning. It criticized the Tribunal’s failure to independently assess the petitioner’s service claim and the lack of a detailed examination of the cited precedents.

Conclusion

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, instructing the Tribunal to review the matter thoroughly. The court emphasized the need for a reasoned order addressing the petitioner’s claims and precedents cited.

Implications

This decision highlights the requirement for reasoned judgments in administrative tribunal orders, especially in cases involving claims of long-term informal employment. It underscores the High Court’s insistence on comprehensive judicial review, ensuring that procedural fairness and legal standards are upheld.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Criticizes Police “Lethargy” in Environmental Case; Orders SIT to Expedite Investigation into Alleged CRZ Map Forgery and Delayed Police Action, Status Report Due December 5, 2024