Lakshmy vs UT OF PUDUCHERRY

1 OA/310/00380/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00380/2026
th
Dated this the 14 day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
K. Lakshmy,
W/o Venkadasubbu,
Second Cross, Pudhu Nagar,
Kondareddypalayam,
Thirukkanur,
Puducherry. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. V. Ajayakumar
Vs.
1. Union of India rep by
rep by The Government of Puducherry,
Through the Secretary to Govt.
for Education, Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry.
2. The Director,
Directorate of School Education,
Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Centenary
Educational Complex,
100 Feet Road, Anna Nagar,
Puducherry. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr.R.Syed Mustafa, GP, Govt. of Puducherry

2 OA/310/00380/2026
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial
Member )
The applicant has filed the OA under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals, Act, 1985, for a direction to the
respondents to consider ther application for the post of
Physical Education Teacher by granting age relaxation meant
for MSP candidates/in service candidates and to appoint her
to the post of Physical Education Teacher and to pass such
other or further orders in the interest of justice and thus
render justice.
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are
as follows:
The applicant submits that she possesses a B.P.Ed. degree, a
B.Com. degree and a Diploma in Physical Education, and is
therefore fully qualified for the post of Physical Education
Teacher. She is presently working as an MTS at Indira
Gandhi Government High School, Katterikuppam,
Puducherry. The respondents issued a Notification dated
29.01.2026 inviting applications to fill 38 vacancies of
Physical Education Teacher on a regular basis, prescribing

3 OA/310/00380/2026
an upper age limit of 30 years as on 27.02.2026. The
applicant contends that the prescribed upper age limit is
unreasonable, as candidates require approximately 21–22
years to obtain a degree and a further two years to complete
the B.P.Ed. course. She submits that age relaxation ought to
be extended to in-service candidates and candidates
belonging to the Meritorious Sports Person (MSP) category.
Having Form-II and Form-III certificates, she claims
entitlement to age relaxation under the applicable MSP rules.
She further contends that the respondents cannot deny such
benefits on the ground that no vacancies have been
earmarked under the MSP category and ought to have
provided for the same while filling 38 vacancies. The
applicant states that, even after applying the claimed age
relaxation, she exceeds the prescribed age limit by two years
and five days. As a regular MTS employee working in a
school, she also claims entitlement to age relaxation and
other applicable benefits under G.O. Ms. No. 22 dated
28.08.1992 and G.O. Ms. No. 98 dated 24.08.1983. Hence,
the present Original Application.

4 OA/310/00380/2026
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that
the applicant is fully qualified for the post of Physical
Education Teacher (PET) and that the respondents’ failure to
consider her candidature is illegal and arbitrary. He further
submitted that, although the applicant exceeds the
prescribed upper age limit by two years and five days, she is
entitled to age relaxation under the applicable rules.
4. He further submitted that the applicant belongs to the
Meritorious Sports Person (MSP) category and has produced
Form-II and Form-III certificates evidencing her sporting
achievements, thereby entitling her to the age relaxation
admissible to MSP candidates. He also contended that, being
a regular employee working as an MTS in a school, the
applicant is entitled to the age relaxation applicable to in-
service candidates.
5. Finally, the learned counsel pointed out that the
previous Notification for recruitment to the post of PET was
issued in 2015 and that the present Notification has been

5 OA/310/00380/2026
issued after a gap of 11 years. He argued that, considering
the upper age limit of 30 years and the time required to
acquire the prescribed qualifications, candidates have only a
limited period of four to five years to avail themselves of the
opportunity for appointment. The prolonged gap between
recruitment notifications has, therefore, adversely affected
eligible candidates. Accordingly, he prayed that the reliefs
sought in the present Original Application be granted.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents,
upon service of notice, filed a reply statement and reiterated
the averments made therein. He submitted that, under the
existing Recruitment Rules notified vide G.O. Ms. No. 100
dated 24.08.2010, the post of Physical Education Teacher
(PET) is classified as a Group ‘B’ Non-Gazetted post, for
which no reservation is provided for Meritorious Sports
Persons (MSP) under direct recruitment. Accordingly, no
vacancies were earmarked for the MSP category in the
impugned notification.

6 OA/310/00380/2026
7, He further submitted that, pursuant to the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 21657/2024 and
batch, the matter concerning age relaxation beyond the
prescribed limit for recruitment to the post of Primary School
Teacher, notified on 12.09.2025, was placed before the
Lieutenant Governor, Puducherry. Upon consideration, the
Lieutenant Governor, in exercise of the powers conferred
under Rule 6 of the relevant Recruitment Rules, declined to
approve the proposal for age relaxation beyond the limits
prescribed under the Department of Personnel and Training
(DoPT) guidelines.
8. Finally, the learned counsel contended that granting
age relaxation beyond the prescribed norms exclusively to
the applicant would be contrary to the settled principles of
service jurisprudence, undermine the recruitment policy of
the Department and create uncertainty regarding the
prescribed upper age limits in future recruitments. He
therefore submitted that age relaxation beyond the upper age
limit prescribed in the PET Recruitment Notification dated

7 OA/310/00380/2026
23.01.2026 is impermissible under the existing rules and
prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
9. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side at length, perused the
pleadings and materials made available on record.
10. It is seen from the records that the Directorate of
School Education, Puducherry with the approval of the
Lieutenant Governor, Puducherry had issued Recruitment
Notification dated 23.01.2026 for filling up 38 Physical
Educate Teacher (PET) post on regular basis in
Puducherry/Karaikal & Mahe Region. The details are as
follows:
PET Level 7 Vacancy UR MBC SC OBC EWS EBC
Puducherry
35 14 6 6 4 4 1
/Karaikal
Mahe 3 2 1 - - - -
Total 38 16 7 6 4 4 1

3.1 Age Limit
The applicants age shall not exceed 30 years as on
27.02.2026 which is the last date for submission of online

8 OA/310/00380/2026
application. Age limit is relaxable for MBC, OBC, EBC, SC,
Ex-servicemen (XSM) and Widows/Divorced Women/Women
judicially separated from their husbands & who are not re-
married, as detailed below:
Category Relaxation of Upper Age
Limit
OBC/MBC/EBC 3 years
SC 5 years
Ex Servicemen (XSN) Period of Military service
plus 3 years
Widows/Divorced
Women/Women judicially
separated from their
Husband and who are not
re-married
Up to the age of 35 years
(up to 40 years for SC)
Requirement of Age for candidates belonging to various
categories is given in the Part – II of the Notification.
11. Accordingly, the Directorate of School Education, in the
PET Recruitment Notification dated 23.01.2026, prescribed
the upper age limit as 30 years as on 27.02.2026 and
provided age relaxation for OBC/MBC/EBC, SC, Ex-
Servicemen, Commissioned Officers, widows, divorced
women and women judicially separated from their husbands
who had not remarried, in accordance with the DoPT Office
Memorandum dated 06.09.2022. Thus, the age limit

9 OA/310/00380/2026
prescribed in the impugned Notification is in conformity with
the existing Recruitment Rules and applicable guidelines.
12. The records further reveal that, under the Recruitment
Rules notified vide G.O. Ms. No. 100 dated 24.08.2010, the
post of Physical Education Teacher (PET) is classified as a
Group ‘B’ Non-Gazetted post, for which no reservation is
provided for Meritorious Sports Persons (MSP) under direct
recruitment. Consequently, no vacancies were earmarked for
the MSP category in the impugned notification, and the
applicant cannot claim consideration under the MSP quota
or age relaxation on that basis.
13. With regard to the applicant’s claim for age relaxation
as an in-service candidate, DoPT O.M. No. 15012/2/2010-
Estt. (D) dated 27.03.2012 provides for five years’ age
relaxation to Group ‘B’ Government servants only where they
belong to the same line or allied cadres and where the
service already rendered is relevant to the efficient discharge
of duties in the post applied for. In the present case, the

10 OA/310/00380/2026
applicant is employed as an MTS, and no relationship has
been established between her present post and the post of
PET so as to satisfy the prescribed conditions for such
relaxation.
14. The pleadings further indicate that the issue involved in
the present Original Application, concerning age relaxation
beyond the prescribed upper age limit, is similar to the
issues considered by this Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 681 of 2025
and 291 of 2025, which have already been dismissed. It is
well settled that the prescription of an upper age limit for
recruitment to a particular post, as well as the extent of
relaxation permissible, falls primarily within the domain of
the competent legislative or executive authority as a matter
of policy. In the absence of any violation of the applicable
rules or guidelines, the applicant cannot claim age relaxation
beyond the prescribed norms as a matter of right.
15, In this regard, tt would be appropriate for us to refer to
the certain judicial decisions. In the case of Union of India

11 OA/310/00380/2026
Vs. Pushpa Rani and Ors reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that –
"The court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the
employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by
direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The court
has no role in determining the methodology of
recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is
also not open to the court to make comparative
evaluation of the merit of the candidates.".
16, In the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs Saifudaullah Khan
& Ors reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that-
"It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the
terms and conditions contained in the advertisement
unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the
relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there
is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still
have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement.".
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ankita Thakur &
Ors. vs. The H.P. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. (Civil
Appeal No. 7602 of 2023), has held that-
"Impugned relaxation being after the last date fixed for
receipt of the application is in teeth of the law settled by
this Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) & Ors [(2013) 11 SCC 58]. That apart, in absence
of power reserved in the advertisement to relax the
eligibility criteria, and there being no publicity of such
relaxation, relaxation of the eligibility criteria falls foul of
the law laid down by this Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs.
Saifudaullah Khan [(2011) 12 SCC 85] and Sanjay K.
Dixit vs. State of U.P [(2019) 17 SCC 373].

12 OA/310/00380/2026
18. Thus, the legal position emerging from the catena of
judgments referred to above is that the Courts cannot
ordinarily direct the Government to alter its recruitment
policy or grant one-time age relaxation. In view of the
foregoing discussion and the dismissal of similar Original
Applications by this Tribunal, the present Original
Application is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
14. 10.2026
mas

M A
SUNDAR
Digitally signed
by M A SUNDAR
Date: 2026.11.02
16:37:34 +05'30'