Smti.R.Chitra v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPCT/42/2025 Smt R. Chitra Vs.
The Union of India and others Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents October 31, 2025 [Manoj] Item No.1 1.
This application has been filed challenging an order dated August 07, 2025 passed in the Original Application No. 351/626/2024, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (Circuit at Port Blair).
2.
By the order impugned, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the respondents with regard to the ineligibility of the petitioner for being appointed as a Nursing Officer on the basis of her performance, although she had passed the test. 3.
According to the learned Tribunal, the petitioner applied for regular appointment, which was to be conducted upon following the due process of selection. The Tribunal opined that the petitioner as well as the respondents were bound by the terms and conditions of the recruitment process and by the notifications with regard to age relaxation. The original application was dismissed on the ground that there was no infirmity in the decision of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that she failed to meet the age criteria.
4.
Mr. Arul Prasanth, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the order impugned suffer from various illegalities
and errors. According to Mr. Prasanth, age relaxation as per the notification of the Ministry had not been provided to the petitioner. The petitioner had been working as a nursing staff for decades, but she has not been absorbed or inducted in the regular establishment, although the government notifications speak otherwise. Preference should have been given to the petitioner as she had rendered her service during the COVID 19 pandemic. Although, the petitioner had qualified in the written examination, her candidature was wrongly rejected on the ground that, she was over aged. The service rendered by the petitioner under the municipal council was also not considered by the respondent while computing the period for which the age relaxation should have been provided.
5.
Moreover, when the learned Tribunal in its wisdom had permitted the petitioner to sit for the test, the rejection of her candidature after she passed the test, was arbitrary. In the earlier round of litigation, the learned Tribunal had erred in directing the respondents to consider the case of appointment of the petitioner upon publication of the result. It could be safely inferred that, the moment the petitioner had been permitted to sit for the test, age bar became a non-issue. The disqualification was thus, illegal. Had the Tribunal been of the opinion that the petitioner did not fulfill the basic eligibility, in that event the Tribunal would not have permitted the petitioner to participate in the process, by passing an interim order. The respondents reopened the issue illegally and rejected the claim for appointment. The learned Tribunal mechanically endorsed the decision of the respondents, without taking into
consideration various notifications of the government and the case laws cited by the petitioner in the course of hearing. 6.
Mr. Prasanth further submits that several persons who were over aged and even older than the petitioner, had been granted appointment in the selection process. 7.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate for the respondents submits that the petitioner filed three Original Applications on the same issue, along with prayers for grant of appointment. Her candidature was considered by the respondents on the basis of the documents supplied by her. Age relaxation was granted to her on the basis of the service rendered by her on contractual basis under the Administration. Even after granting such age relaxation, the petitioner was found to be over aged. As per the relevant notifications, the calculations were made. The number of days of contractual service rendered by the petitioner was lesser than the period by which the petitioner was over aged.
8.
Attention of the Bench is drawn to the affidavit filed by the respondents in the proceeding before the Tribunal. The calculation had been made by the authorities in a tabular form. The applications of the petitioner pursuant to the vacancy notifications of 2018-19 and 2023, were considered. 9.
It is further submitted that, in the affidavit-in-reply, an explanation had been provided to the Tribunal, as to why one Anita Kumari was granted appointment. The said candidate had rendered contractual service for a period longer than the number of days by which she was over aged, and as such, when the relaxation was given as per notification, the candidate came within the age limit.
10.
Mr. Kumar further submits that, bald allegations have been made by the petitioner that, other over aged persons had been appointed and she was deprived and discriminated upon. No specific instances have been cited in support of such allegation.
11.
It is also contended that the decisions which have been relied upon by Mr. Prasanth were distinguishable on facts. Those decisions were passed with regard to termination of contractual services of nursing staff who served during the pandemic, but were discontinued thereafter. Some of them were passed on the issue of regularizations.
Under such circumstances, the Tribunals had directed continuation of such persons in their contractual position and in the event regular appointments were made, the issue of granting preference for their service during the COVID pandemic, should also be considered. Those decisions are not applicable in the instant case as the petitioner's contractual service has never been disturbed. She is still continuing.
12.
The question of giving preference to the petitioner for the service rendered during the pandemic will only arise if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for being appointed to the post, as per the recruitment rules. From the very beginning, when the recruitment process started in 2019 and thereafter in 2023, the petitioner was considered to be ineligible for having crossed the age bar. Her name was accordingly published in the list of ineligible candidates. The stand of the respondents has been consistent. The question of depriving the petitioner or discriminating against the petitioner does not arise. The allegations of the petitioner are baseless and unfounded.
13.
Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 14.
The background of the case in a nutshell is as follows:- (i) Vacancies for the post of Nursing Officer was first published by a vacancy notice dated September 14, 2018. Applications were invited through online mode and for candidates of southern group of islands, offline applications were allowed. The closing date for receipt of application was October 5, 2018.
However, the recruitment examination was not conducted due to administrative reasons and it was decided by the authority that on March 22, 2019 a fresh recruitment process, with a revised vacancy notice, would be initiated. Such vacancy notice was published on June 21, 2019. (ii) The post of Nursing Officer was a Group B Non Gazatted post. The maximum age limit was 30 years. The petitioner applied for the post of Nursing Officer in response to the said vacancy.
(iii) Upon scrutiny of applications and the supporting documents submitted by the candidates, a list of eligible and ineligible candidates were published on September 27, 2019, inviting claims and objections. It was found that the petitioner was over aged and the contractual service rendered by the petitioner as per the documents submitted, was less than the period by which the petitioner was over aged. Even after granting the age relaxation in terms of the Circular dated June 06, 2001, the petitioner did not qualify. Her name was published in the list of ineligible candidates, by the department.
(iv) 152 objections were received from the candidates. The petitioner also submitted her claim on October 03, 2019. The objections, including the objection of the petitioner, were examined by the department's screening committee. It was opined that the petitioner was not eligible for age relaxation as the contractual service rendered by her as per her own documents, was less than the period by which she was over aged. The final list of eligible and ineligible candidates was published on November 26, 2020.
(v) Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed an Original Application being OA No. 351/1439/2020, with a prayer for setting aside the final list of ineligible candidates published by the Directorate of Health Services, under the Administration.
(vi) The learned Tribunal disposed of the OA by an order dated January 01, 2021, thereby, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation and further directing the respondents to consider the representation with an open mind, within the ambit of the rules, upon considering the years of experience which the petitioner possessed.
(vii) In compliance of the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner submitted a representation on January 06, 2021.
The representation was examined and the Committee found that the petitioner was over aged even after taking in consideration the total period of contractual service rendered by the petitioner, as per the relevant circular.
(viii) Aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the petitioner filed another Original Application being OA No. 351/349/2021, before the Tribunal. The petitioner prayed for setting aside of the final list of ineligible candidates in which her name appeared at Sl.No. 301. Further prayers were made for setting aside the decision dated February 11, 2021, passed by the respondent authorities, or in the alternative, for setting aside the entire list of both eligible and ineligible candidates. (ix) By an order dated March 10, 2021, the Tribunal granted an interim relief to the petitioner, specially because the petitioner had raised an objection with regard to the eligibility of Anita Kumari whose name featured at serial No. 59 of the list as an eligible candidates.
According to the petitioner, Anita had been granted age relaxation in terms of the circular dated June 06, 2021. Her date of birth was March 16, 1976 and she was much older than the petitioner. By the interim order, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the selection process, subject to the result of the OA. It was further directed that the result of the OA would not be published without the leave of the Tribunal. The matter was kept returnable on a particular date.
(x) The petitioner was allowed to appear for the computer based test held from July 11, 2023 to July 15, 2023. The OA was finally heard and disposed of by the Tribunal, directing that the result of the petitioner should be published. The respondents were directed to call the petitioner for document verification and to once again
consider the candidature of the petitioner in the light of what had been directed and upon following the terms and conditions stipulated in the vacancy notices. (xi) In compliance of the order, the result of the petitioner was published along with the complete list of candidates who appeared for the recruitment process for the post of Nursing Officer.
(xii) Aggrieved by the impugned order dated November 30, 2023, passed in OA 351/349/2021, the petitioner moved WPCT/001/2024 before the High Court at Calcutta for a direction upon the respondents to issue the appointment letter. The said application was disposed of with the observation that it could not be presumed that the petitioner would be treated in a different light and would not be considered in the same footing as the other candidates. Apprehension of the petitioner that nine others candidates who were over aged would be appointed, but the petitioner would be treated differently, was not accepted and the High Court left it to the authorities to decide the candidature of the petitioner as directed by the Tribunal, upon granting the petitioner a fair treatment in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
It was directed that if the petitioner was not found to be eligible, the reasons should be disclosed. On the basis of the said order of the High Court, a speaking order was passed on January 31, 2024.
in terms of her applications submitted in 2019 and 2023, as hereunder:- "Contract services considered in terms of application submitted against recruitment Notice published in 2019 Date of Birth of the candidate:
16/05/1981 Category:
EWS Crucial date for determining age:
01/4/2019 Age as on Crucial Date:
37 Years 10 Months and 16 days Over Age Period:
07 years 10 months 16 days Sl.
No.
Period Days Particulars dated from to Certificate from Dist.
Health Society, S/A (Staff Nurse) 8.02.2018, 17.08.2016 01.04.2019 10.07.2019 Certificate from MO, PHC, Hutbay (Staff Nurse) 18.04.2009 17.11.2008 17.04.2009 Certificate from MS, GBPH (Staff Nurse) 25.02.2016 08.02.2008 23.03.2008 Certificate from MS, GBPH (Staff Nurse) 25.02.2016 23.03.2013 06.05.2013 Certificate from MS, GBPH (Staff Nurse) 25.02.2016 20.12.2014 02.02.2015 Certificate from MO, PHC Garacharma 22.06.2007 15.05.2007 22.06.2007 Certificate from MO, PHC Garacharma 12.07.2005 07.04.2005 04.07.2005 Certificate from MO, CHC, Bambooflat 07.07.2004 05.06.2004 04.07.2004 Certificate from Matron GBPH (Staff Nurse) 27.11.2003 07.10.2003 20.11.2003 Certificate from MO, PHC Katchal 10.04.2004 11.02.2004 07.04.2004 Total no. of days
Overage Period Contract Service 07 years 10 months 16 days 04 Years, 01 Month, 13 Days Contract Service considered in terms of application submitted against recruitment Notice published in 2023 Date of Birth of the candidate:
16/05/1981 Category:
EWS Crucial date for determining age:
01/6/2023 Age as on Crucial Date:
42 Years O Months and 16 days Overage Period: (After allowing relaxation for 02 years vide Admin. Order No. 2758 dated 20/10/2022) 10 years 00 months 16 days Over Age Period:
07 years 10 months 16 days Sl.
No Period Days Particulars dated from to Certificate from Dist.
Health Society, S/A (Staff Nurse) 8.02.2018, 17.08.2016 01.06.2023 2,479 10.07.2019 Certificate from MO, PHC, Hutbay (Staff Nurse) 18.04.2009 17.11.2008 17.04.2009 Certificate from MS, GBPH (Staff Nurse) 25.02.2016 08.02.2008 23.03.2008 Certificate from MS, GBPH (Staff Nurse) 25.02.2016 23.03.2013 06.05.2013 Certificate from MS, GBPH (Staff Nurse) 25.02.2016 20.12.2014 02.02.2015 Certificate from MO, PHC Garacharma 22.06.2007 15.05.2007 22.06.2007 Certificate from MO, PHC Garacharma 12.07.2005 07.04.2005 04.07.2005 Certificate from MO, CHC, Bambooflat 07.07.2004 05.06.2004 04.07.2004 Certificate from Matron GBPH (Staff Nurse) 27.11.2003 07.10.2003 20.11.2003 Certificate from MO, PHC Katchal 10.04.2004 11.02.2004 07.04.2004 Total no. of days
Overage Period (After allowing Contract Service relaxation for 02 years vide Admin. Order No. 2758 dated 20/10/2022) 10 years 00 months 16 days 08 Years 03 Months 16 Days Voluntary service rendered not considered for age relaxation Sl.
No.
Period Days Particulars dated from to Voluntary service at PHC, Katchal 10.04.2004 18.12.2003 10.02.2004 Voluntary service at PHC, Katchal 10.06.2003 06.03.2003 10.06.2003 Voluntary service at CHC Nancowry 27.11.2002 09.11.2002 27.11.2002 Total no. of days Service rendered at Private Hospital/NGO not considered for age relaxation Sl.
No.
Period Particulars dated from to Chirayu Child Care Centre 12.04.2016 28.04.2009 28.02.2013 Chirayu Child Care Centre 12.04.2016 17.08.2013 27.12.2013 Chirayu Child Care Centre 12.04.2016 13.02.2015 12.04.2016 WBVHA July 2006 Jan 2007 Service rendered as DRM at PBMC not considered for age relaxation Sl.
No.
Period Particulars dated from to Certificate from PBMC 30.11.2023 Feb-15 Apr-16 15.
According to the respondents, voluntary service, service in private hospital and NGO's and as a mazdoor in the Municipal Council could not be considered for age relaxation as per the relevant notification dated June 06, 2001. The reasoned order which was passed by the respondents on January 31, 2024, is the subject matter of OA 351/626/2024.
16.
Admittedly, the petitioner was over aged when she applied in 2019. The constant stand of the respondents have been that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria. The tabular depiction of the age calculation supports the case of the respondents. The Tribunal considered each of the notifications and came to a finding that the petitioner's service as a mazdoor in the Municipality would not be considered for age relaxation as per the notification. The Tribunal set out the provisions of the notification which was applicable to the petitioner. The issue of Anita Kumari was explained by the respondents, which was accepted by the learned Tribunal. Anita had rendered longer period as a contractual worker and such period was more than the period by which she was over aged. This was not the petitioner's situation.
17.
The petitioner was found to be ineligible despite having been given the benefit of the contractual services she had rendered in the department on the basis of her own calculation and her own documents. The petitioner has not been able to show that the calculation made by the respondents is either erroneous or faulty. The petitioner has not been able to cite a single example with regard to appointment of candidates who had crossed the age bar, in the same selection process. 18.
The submission of Mr. Prasanth that, the government notifications were not considered, is incorrect. The Ministry's letter dated May 03, 2021, was found to be inapplicable in this case, inasmuch as, unless a candidate is found to be eligible to appear at the recruitment process, the question of grant of preference in appointment for having rendered service during the COVID pandemic, will not arise.
19.
Moreover, the letter of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated May 03, 2021, is only a recommendation by the Central Government to the States and Union Territories. The States and Union Territories were asked to consider the issue of granting preference in regular government appointments to the health professionals, who had completed 100 days of COVID duty. This was to be done either through the respective Public Service Commissions or other recruitment bodies, under a scheme. The Tribunal rightly held that there was nothing on record to show that such recommendation had been accepted by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, while conducting the selection process.
20.
In the order impugned, the learned Tribunal elaborately discussed the issues raised by the petitioner. The calculation of age made by the respondents, the ramifications, contents and purport of the circular with regard to age relaxation etc were also carefully looked into. The recommendation of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to give preference to health workers who had worked during the COVID pandemic was found to be only a recommendation and had not been accepted by the Administration.
21.
Under such circumstances, this Bench does not find any illegality in the order impugned. With regard to the decisions cited by Mr. Prasanth, which form part of the application before us, we have minutely gone through those and we find that those were rendered when contractual workers who had rendered service during the COVID pandemic had been discontinued abruptly. Under such circumstances, various Tribunals had passed orders directing continuation of those
contractual workers till regular appointments were made and in case regular recruitment processes were to be initiated, their service during the COVID period should be considered. No mandatory direction for appointment of such persons in the regular establishment had been passed. The case of the petitioner is different. Her contractual service has not been disturbed by the respondents.
22.
Retention of contractual workers who were much older than the petitioner as per orders of other Tribunals in other cases, pertain to those particular cases in which the contractual workers were discontinued after the pandemic. They were allowed to continue on contractual basis. 23.
We now consider the decisions cited by Mr. Prasanth. (a) Sanjay Kumar vs. Health and Family Welfare passed in O.A No. 3750 of 2022 along with other original applications, by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi.
In this matter the issues before the Tribunal were whether, the applicants therein, who were engaged directly by the authority in terms of a specific scheme, could be replaced by another set of daily wages/contractual workers through an outsource agency or not and whether, while filling up the relevant post on regular basis, the respondents were required to grant certain age relaxations or preferences to the applicants in the light of the circular dated May 03, 2021. The Tribunal held that discontinuation of the contractual services were bad in law, in view of the scheme by which the applicants had been appointed on contractual basis.
The applicants were allowed to continue on
contractual basis, till the regular vacancies were filled. Further direction was passed to the effect that, additional weightage should be given if those candidates were being considered for appointment in the regular establishment as per the recruitment rules. The factual distinctions herein makes the decision inapplicable in the present case. (b) Ranjeet Singh and others vs. Union of India and others passed in O.A No. 2633 of 2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi. No specific directions were given for appointment of the applicants in terms of the notification/letter dated May 03, 2021, but the respondents were directed to consider the cases of the applicants therein in accordance with the policy. (c) Vinod Kumar Sharma and others vs. Union of India and another passed in WP(C) No. 17291 of 2022 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
In this decision the issue of regularization of the service of the health workers in Safdarjung Hospital and AIIMS had fallen for decision. Those health workers who were working on contractual basis against available vacancies had challenged the two recruitment notices issued by the respective hospitals. The notice by which the services of the contractual workers were terminated was set aside and regularization was permitted as there were 84 available vacancies. This was done in the light of recommendation of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The petitioner has not prayed for regularization.
(d) Dr. D. Hariharan and others vs. Union of India and others passed in WP No. 25827 of 2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras.
The issue whether the post graduate doctors in government hospital would be eligible for incentive marks for selfless service rendered by them during COVID 19 in the wards of different hospitals, was decided.
(e) The Unknown vs. Union of India passed in WP No. 5583 of 2024 by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras.
The issue was with regard to the preference in a selection process that was to be given to the COVID workers by allotting them extra marks between 2 to 5, based on their performance during such period and further grant of age relaxation as per the rules. In the present case, the question of awarding additional marks to the petitioner does not arise as the petitioner has already qualified the test.
Disqualification is not on the basis of in adequacy of marks, but ineligibility to appear for selection on the ground of being over aged, even after grant of age relaxation as per the governments notification/circulars.
(f) P.
Jebasahila and others vs.
the Principal Secretary, Government of India, Health and Family Welfare Department and others passed in WP No. 2424 of 2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. The issue was with regard to the regularization and thus, the decision cannot be applied.
24.
Accordingly, WPCT/42/2025 is dismissed. The order of the learned Tribunal is upheld.
25.
There shall be no order as to costs.
26.
Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
( Shampa Sarkar, J. ) ( Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. )