MANJU BALA vs Department of Education
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No.304/2024
th
This the 19 day of August, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. Manju Bala D/o Sukhbir Singh Aged about 39 years
R/o H.No.27, VPO Kakrola New Delhi-78 Contract
Teacher, M.C.D Sub: Appointment Group-'B' Mobile:
9891924361
2. Indu W/o Subhash Pawar Aged about 41 years R/o F-
12/A, Moti Nagar New Delhi-15 Contract teacher
M.C.P.S Wazirabad, water Tank-I, M.C.D Sub:
Appointment Group-'B'
3. Seema Sharma D/o Satish Chander Sharma Aged
about 40 years R/o RZ-170, Roshan Garden Najafgarh,
New Delhi-43 Contract Teacher M.C.D Sub: Appointment
Group-'B'
4. Poonam W/o Hans Raj Aged about 41 years, R/o
H.No.49, VPO Nangal Thakran Delhi-110039 Contract
teacher M.C.D Sub: Appointment Group-'B'
5. Usha D/o Naresh Kr. Jindal W/o Shri Rohtash Goyal
Aged about 39 years R/o A-7/81, Sector-18 Rohini,
Delhi-110089 Contract teacher M.C.D Sub: Appointment
Group-'B'
6. Kavita W/o Shri Krishan Aged about 36 years, R/o-S-
59, Dwarka More, Delhi-110059 Contract teacher M.C.D
Sub: Appointment Group-'B'
7. Raj Bala Karir D/o Gian Chand Karir Aged about 38
years R/o D-256, IInd Floor Tagore Garden extension
New Delhi-27 Contract teacher M.C.D Sub: Appointment
Group-'B'
8. Bhawna D/o D.L. Narang W/o Amit Sareen Aged
about 42 years, R/o-275, IInd Floor, Tagore Park, Model
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
2
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
Town Ist Delhi-09 Contract teacher M.C.D Sub:
Appointment Group-'B'
9. Pooja D/o Subhash Chander Aged about 41 years R/o
B-7/76, Sector-04, Rohini, Delhi-85 Contract teacher
M.C.D Sub: Appointment Group-'B'
10. Jyoti Bhardwaj D/o Raj Kishore Aged about 41
years R/o H.No.179, Ranikhera Delhi-81 Contract
teacher M.C.D Sub: Appointment Group-'B'
11. Sahiba Pathak D/o Yogesh Bhardwaj Aged about 38
years, R/o E-2/5/27, Sector-15 Rohini, Delhi-110089
Contract teacher M.C.D Sub: Appointment Group-'B'
12. Rupali Khanna D/o Ved Prakash Khanna Aged
about 37 years, R/o B.238, Indra Nagar Street No.08
Delhi-110033 Contract teacher M.C.D Sub: Appointment
Group-'B'
13. Winpreet Kaur D/o Jasbir Singh Aged about 39
years R/o 1088, LIG Flats, Pocket-D, Phase-03, Ashok
Vihar, Delhi-110052 Contract teacher M.C.D Sub:
Appointment Group-'B'
14. Geeta Yadav D/o Krishan Kumar Aged about 37
years R/o 74/2, Gali No.09, East Sagar Pur New Delhi-
110046 Sub: Appointment Group-'B'
…Applicants
(By Advocates : Mr. Ranjit Sharma)
Versus
1. Govt. of N.C.T, Delhi Through the Principal Secretary
Education Old Secretariat, Delhi-54
2. Director of Education Govt. of N.C.T, Delhi Old
Secretariat, Delhi-54
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through the
Commissioner S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre J.L.N Marg,
New Delhi-02
4. Director of Education Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre J.L.N Marg, New
Delhi-02
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
3
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
5. New Delhi Municipal Council, Through the
Secretary, Palika Kendra, Parliament Street, New Delhi-
110001
6. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Through
the Secretary FC-18, Institutional Area Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092
…Respondents
(By Advocates : Mr. Ritank Kumar for Mr. Amit Anand;
Ms. Anupama Bansal for MCD)
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
4
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
The applicants, 14 in number, have filed the
present Original Application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, being aggrieved
by the non-grant of age relaxation to them, thereby
depriving them of the opportunity to participate in the
selection process for appointment to the post of
Assistant Teacher (Nursery) (Post Code 817/23)
pursuant to Advertisement No. 08/2023 (Annexure
A/1).
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits
that the applicants have been working under the
respondents for the last more than 14 to 20 years
and, on account of the prescribed age limit, have
become over-aged for participating in the selection
process in question. It is submitted that despite their
long years of service under the respondents, the
applicants have not been granted appropriate age
relaxation so as to enable them to participate in the
selection process.
3. Vide order dated 02.02.2024, this Tribunal, as
an interim measure, permitted the applicants to
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
5
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
participate provisionally in the selection process in
question, without creating any equity or indefeasible
right in their favour. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim
order, the applicants participated in the selection
process.
4. In the present Original Application, the
applicants seek the following reliefs:-
“a. hold that limiting age-relaxation for Contractual
Employees of the same department to five years is not
reasonable and fair and that the applicants are entitled to
a comprehensive age-relaxation and accordingly quash the
limitation of relaxation of age to 5 years, directing the
respondents to consider the applicants for appointment to
the post of Nursery Teacher (Post Code 817/2023) in
pursuance of Advt. No.8/2023 in MCD, Directorate of
Education, GNCTD and the NDMC;
AND/OR
b. pass such other order/s as may be deemed fit &
proper.”
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has
produced, in a sealed cover, the result of the
applicants. The sealed cover has been perused. A
perusal of the result reveals that only Applicant Nos.
1, 5, 7 and 14, namely, Manju Bala, Usha, Rajbala
Karir and Geeta Yadav, respectively, have secured
marks above the prescribed cut-off. The result in
respect of the remaining applicants does not indicate
that they have secured marks above the prescribed
cut-off.
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
6
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
6. Learned counsel for the respondents further places
reliance upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal
in O.A. No. 669/2024, decided on 18.08.2026, and
submits that the controversy involved in the present
Original Application is covered by the aforesaid
decision. He, therefore, submits that the present O.A.
may also be disposed of in terms of the directions
issued in O.A. No. 669/2024. The relevant portion of
the said decision reads as under:-
“ In the present Original Application, filed under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985, the applicant has prayed for the following
reliefs:
“(a) Declaring the Clause of Eligibity Criteria (Age) of
the Vacancies Notice/ Advertisement No.02/2024
DT.12.01.2024 issued by the Respondents
(F.1(247)/P&P-I, DSSSB/ 2024/ 4386) as illegal,
arbitrary & discriminatory with respect these
vacancies of the year 2021-2022 which also includes
backlog vacancies for the post code 808/ 24 i.e. the
post of TGT SANSKRIT (FEMALE) which determines
the eligibility age of the candidate/ applicant 'as on
08.03.2024' i.e. closing date of filling the application
form, therefore must be set aside and the eligibility
age of the candidate/ applicant shall relate back to
the year 2022 or maximum in the year 2023 when
vacancies have to be advertised for the identified
vacancies of the year 2021-2022, therefore, a
corrigendum of the same is required to be issued by
correcting the date of Eligibility Age criteria from
'08.03.2024' i.e. Date of Closing of filling of
application to '12.01.2024' i.e. Date of issuing of
Advertisement no.02/ 24 оr by giving the One year
more age relaxation in addition to the already given
age criteria as per various judgments of Hon'ble High
Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
(b) Pass any other or further orders, which this
Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the present case;”
2. The applicant is an aspirant for the post of
TGT Sanskrit (Female) and had applied pursuant
to Vacancy Notice/Advertisement No. 02/2024
dated 12.01.2024. Learned counsel for the
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
7
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
applicant submits that the said advertisement
includes backlog vacancies dating back to the
vacancy year 2021–2022. According to him, the
applicant was within the prescribed upper age
limit as on 12.01.2024, but crossed the said age
limit by the closing date for submission of
applications. It is, therefore, contended that,
since the advertisement pertains, inter alia, to
backlog vacancies of earlier years, the age
eligibility of the applicant ought to be determined
with reference to the relevant vacancy year rather
than the closing date of the application. Learned
counsel further submits that, pursuant to the
interim directions passed by this Tribunal, the
applicant was permitted to participate in the
selection process. The respondents have
produced the result of the applicant, from which
it is evident that she has qualified on merit,
having secured 143.48 marks out of 200.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant also
draws a reference to the interim order passed by
this Tribunal in O.A. No. 836/2024 & Batch
dated 06.03.2024 allowing the applicants to
participate in the examination in question, which
reads as under:
“As the question of law in all the cases is similar,
we are adjudicating all the OAs on the question of
grant of interim relief by a common order.
2. The applicants in OA No.771/2024 have prayed
for the following interim reliefs:-
"i. Pass an order permitting the Applicants to
apply against the post of Drawing Teacher
against Advertisement No. 02/2024 issued by
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board.
ii. Pass an order directing Respondents to keep 2
posts vacant till the pendency of the present OA."
3. Mr. Siddharth K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
applicants in OA No.771/2024 submits that in the
case of Drawing Teacher, the age limit criterion
mentioned in the advertisement is 30 years wherein
in case of other respective posts, it is mentioned as
40 years and therefore, the action of the respondents
is discriminatory and illegal in nature. He contends
that the present case squarely falls within the scope
and ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
He further contends that the old Recruitment Rules
(RRs) are placed on record wherein in respect of the
age limit in the case of Drawing Teachers, it is
mentioned that the age limit is 30years (Relaxable in
case of Govt. servants, University Teachers and also
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
8
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
in case of female candidate upto a maximum of 40
years). He further contends that the terms and
conditions as stipulated in the said Advertisement
are contrary to RRs published in case of other post
codes (10 in number).
4. Countering the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Amit
Anand, learned counsel for the respondents states
that the RRs stood changed in the year 2016 itself.
He contends that the present selection process is
strictly in accordance with the revised RRs of 2016
which are not even challenged by the applicants. In
case of the other post codes in which the said
amendment has not been carried out and the same
still holds good. Hence, there is no case of
discrimination in the present factual scenario. Even
otherwise, drawing parallel equivalence to the other
post codes does not hold much water as they
altogether stand in different class or category. Or
5. In addition to the submissions made by Mr.
Siddharth K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
applicants in OA No.771/2024 and Mr. S.N. Sharma,
learned counsel for the applicant in OA No.779/2024
submits in respect of the issue of challenge of RRs,
that the same has been challenged in his case in so
far as two years extension is concerned, which is
apparent from paras 5.2 and 5.3 of the grounds of
the preferred OA. He further contends that the
applicant in this OA would become overage by more
than two years if she is not allowed to participate in
the selection process under reference. He further
challenges the issue of disparity in the essential
qualifications by stating that in respect of all
subjects, it is graduation whereas in the case of
drawing teachers, the respondents are asking post
graduation as minimum qualification. He further
informs that for other post codes as well, the
amendment was carried out on 06.09.2023 wherein
the age limit was curtailed to 30 years and no age
relaxation for female candidates up to 40 years.
6. In addition to the submissions made by Mr. S. Ν.
Sharma, learned counsel, Mr. Ranjit Sharma, learned
counsel for the applicants in OA No.836/2024 argues
that the action of the respondents has been
challenged on the touchstone of the constitutional
principle in so far as it is discriminatory in nature. He
contends that vide Notification dated 21.12.1998, the
age limit of 30 years was amended to 32 years in the
initial recruitment as well.
7. Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the
respondents draws attention to various Office
Communications dated 04.08.2023, 20.07.2023 &
26.06.2021. He contends that since the vacancies
pertain to earlier year, the earlier rules were followed
and accordingly the said Advertisement was issued
with conscious decision of the respondents.
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
9
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the
question of interim relief.
Analysis:
9. In all the OAs the main thrust of the argument of
the learned counsel for applicants is that for the post
of Drawing Teacher, no relaxation to the female
candidates has been provided except for one
provided under para 8 of the advertisement. Even if
there is a challenge based on the principle of Article
14 of the Constitution being illogical, arbitrary and
discriminatory for grant of interim relief, each
individual OA is taken up for consideration.
9.1 The applicant in OA No.669/2024 is an aspirant
for the post of TGT Sanskrit who applied against the
vacancy notice dated 12.01.2024. Learned counsel
for the applicant explains that the vacancy notice
also includes backlog vacancies and this backlog
goes upto the year 2021-22. He submits that the
applicant herein was eligible for participation for this
post till 12.01.2024, when she crossed the upper age
limit. He argues that since the advertisement was
also for backlog vacancies, the eligibility of age
criteria should be determined with respect to the year
of the said vacancies.
9.2 In support of his contention he placed reliance on
9.2 the decision of Hon'ble High court of Delhi in
Nitish Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India and
another, Neutral Citation No.2023/DSC/001840
decided on 14.03.2023.
9.3 Accordingly, by way of an interim measure, we
direct the respondents to permit the applicant to
participate in the examination. However, her result
shall be kept in a sealed cover.
9.4 The applicant in OA No.817/2024 is an aspirant
for the post of TGT (English) (Female), TGT (Social
Science) (Female) and TGT (Hindi) (Female), who
applied against the vacancy notice dated
12.01.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant
produced letter dated 04.08.2023 issued by Dy.
Director of Education (E-III) regarding requisitions for
filling up vacancies of TGT/TGT (MIL) for 4784 posts
occurred during the vacancy year 2021 & 2022,
meaning thereby that the old RRs have to be taken
into consideration. He submits that the vacancy
notice also includes backlog vacancies and this
backlog goes upto the year 2021-22. He further
submits that the applicant herein was eligible for
participation for this post till 12.01.2024, when she
crossed the upper age limit. He argues that since the
advertisement was also for backlog vacancies, the
eligibility of age criteria should be determined with
respect to the year of the said vacancies. The lis
challenging the RRsas well as the representation are
pending in this case. This OA is also challenging the
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
10
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019 issued by
Special Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi to
the extent it has failed to provide age relaxation for
the guest teachers upto number of years they have
worked with the respondents.
10. Conclusion:
10.1 Learned counsel for applicants have made out a
prima facie case, balance of convenience also lies in
favour of the applicants and if the interim protection
is not granted she is likely to suffer irreparable loss
and injury more particularly, when the matter
pertains to age relaxation. Therefore, he seeks an
interim protection to the extent that applicant is
permitted to participate in the selection/examination
provisionally. Accordingly, by way of an interim
measure, we direct the respondents to permit the
applicant to participate in the examination. However,
her result shall be kept in a sealed cover.
10.2 It is made clear that right to participate shall not
give any indefeasible right to the applicants for future
selection. The interim order is being passed purely to
enable the applicants to participate in the selection
process without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of either party. The issue of age
relaxation which is a larger issue shall be
determined at the stage of final hearing.
11. Issue notice to the respondents to file reply within
4 weeks. 2 weeks thereafter is granted to the
applicant to file rejoinder, if any. List on 28.05.2024.”
4. In support of the applicant’s claim, learned
counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2022,
titled High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma ,
decided on 14.03.2022.
5. He further relies upon the decision rendered
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)
2977/2023 dated 24.03.2023 titled Nitish
Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.,
which reads as under:
“15. Having no difference of opinion than the one
rendered earlier in Sachin (Supra) in the light of the
fact that candidates, such like petitioners herein,
who have been aspiring to join Indian Army on the
post of Sepoy Pharma, but have not been able to
pursue their dreams due to non-advertisement of the
vacancies and have turned over aged, in the interest
of justice cannot be deprived to appear in the
examination if they fulfill other eligibility criteria.
16. This Court is informed that the last date of
applying for the post ofSepoy Pharma is 15.03.2023.
Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
11
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
issue a Corrigendum on or before 15.03.2023
declaring relaxation of age of 02 years as a 'one time
measure' and also extending the date of inviting
applications for the post in question.
17. With directions, as aforesaid, the present petition
and pending applications are accordingly disposed
of.”
6. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel
for the respondents relies upon the averments
made in the counter affidavit. He submits that
Advertisement No. 02/24 pertains to the vacancy
years 2021–22 and also includes backlog
vacancies in respect of TGT/TGT (MIL) posts of
the User Department, which is a matter of record.
He further submits that, under Post Code 808/24
for the post of TGT-Sanskrit (Female), the total
number of vacancies advertised was 141. The
educational qualifications possessed by the
petitioner for the said post, as reflected in the
documents submitted by the petitioner, are
likewise a matter of record. It is further submitted
that the eligibility criteria prescribed under
Advertisement No. 02/24 for Post Code 808/24
for the post of TGT-Sanskrit (Female) were duly
adhered to. The vacancies pertaining to the years
2021 and 2022, along with the backlog vacancies,
were taken into consideration while determining
the vacancies for the said post code. The
publication of the advertisement was undertaken
by the DSSSB in accordance with the applicable
recruitment process. He further submits that the
vacancy year only created only after the
completion the particular years and
determination of age criteria decided by DSSSB.
7. It has been further contended by the
learned counsel for the respondents that the age
criteria in respect of Female candidate only been
given up to 40 years as per clause inserted in the
then recruitment rules in r/o TGT/TGT (MIL)
wherein, the relaxation of age as per policy of
Government in reservation criteria is excluding to
the age limit of 40 years for female candidate for
the vacancy year 2021 and 2022. In the then
Recruitment Rules it has been mentioned that
relaxation of age is upto 40 years for female
candidates not 1 additional year hence, the relief
sought by petitioner is not found tenable in view
of the above clarification.
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
12
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
8. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties at length and perused the pleadings and
material placed on record.
9. The controversy in the present case is
confined to a relatively short period of age
relaxation. The applicant had participated in the
selection process pursuant to the interim order of
this Tribunal and has admittedly qualified on
merit, securing 143.48 marks out of 200. The fact
that the advertisement included vacancies
pertaining to the years 2021–2022, including
backlog vacancies, is also not in dispute. The
respondents have justified the determination of
age eligibility with reference to the date
prescribed in the advertisement and have relied
upon the applicable Recruitment Rules,
particularly the provision governing relaxation of
age for female candidates up to the age of 40
years. At the same time, the peculiar
circumstances of the present case cannot be lost
sight of. The applicant was permitted to
participate in the selection process pursuant to
the interim order passed by this Tribunal, and
she has subsequently qualified on merit.
10. In these peculiar facts and circumstances,
and having regard to the limited extent of age
relaxation involved, we are of the considered view
that the matter deserves to be considered by the
competent authority at the appropriate level. The
competent authority, namely, the Lieutenant
Governor, who is not a party to the present
proceedings, may consider whether, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the
applicant deserves age relaxation as a one-time
measure.
11. Accordingly, the present Original
Application is disposed of with a direction to the
competent authority to consider the applicant’s
case for grant of appropriate age relaxation,
keeping in view the facts and circumstances
noticed hereinabove, including her participation
in the selection process and the fact that she has
qualified on merit. A holistic view shall be taken
and an appropriate order shall be passed within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. In the event the
competent authority passes an order in favour of
the applicant granting the requisite age
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
13
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
relaxation, the respondents shall consider her
case for appointment, subject to her fulfilling all
other eligibility conditions in accordance with the
applicable rules.
12. The O.A. stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. All pending M.A(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that
the applicants have participated in the selection
process pursuant to the interim order passed by this
Tribunal and that, having regard to their long years of
service under the respondents, their cases deserve to
be considered sympathetically for grant of appropriate
age relaxation. It is further submitted that the benefit
of the directions issued in O.A. No. 669/2024 may
also be extended to the applicants who have qualified
in the selection process.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the pleadings and material placed on
record.
8.1 The controversy raised in the present Original
Application is substantially similar to the controversy
considered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 669/2024. In
the said matter also, the applicant had participated in
the selection process pursuant to the interim order
passed by the Tribunal and had subsequently
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
14
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
qualified on merit. Having regard to the peculiar facts
and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal
considered it appropriate to leave the question of
grant of age relaxation as a one-time measure to the
competent authority for consideration.
8.2 In the present case also, the result produced by
the respondents in the sealed cover establishes that
Applicant Nos. 1, 5, 7 and 14 have secured marks
above the prescribed cut-off. Thus, insofar as these
applicants are concerned, they have participated in
the selection process pursuant to the interim
protection granted by this Tribunal and have also
qualified on merit. Their cases, therefore, stand on a
similar footing to that of the applicant in O.A. No.
669/2024.
8.3 In view of the aforesaid decision and
considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case, particularly the long period of
service rendered by the applicants and their
participation in the selection process pursuant to the
interim order dated 02.02.2024, we are of the
considered view that the cases of Applicant Nos. 1, 5,
7 and 14 deserve to be considered by the competent
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
15
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
authority for grant of appropriate age relaxation as a
one-time measure. We, however, make it clear that we
have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
claim for grant of such relaxation, and the competent
authority shall consider the matter independently and
in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the present Original Application is
disposed of with a direction to the competent
authority to consider the cases of Applicant Nos. 1, 5,
7 and 14, namely, Manju Bala, Usha, Rajbala Karir
and Geeta Yadav, respectively, for grant of appropriate
age relaxation as a one-time measure, keeping in view
their participation in the selection process and the
fact that they have qualified on merit. The competent
authority shall take a holistic view of the matter and
pass an appropriate reasoned order within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.
10. In the event the competent authority grants the
requisite age relaxation to the aforesaid applicants,
the respondents shall consider their candidature for
appointment to the post in question, subject to their
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'
16
Item No.99/ C-IV O.A. No.304/2024
fulfilling all other eligibility conditions and the
applicable Recruitment Rules.
11. Insofar as the remaining applicants are
concerned, since they have not secured marks above
the prescribed cut-off, no direction for consideration
of their candidature for appointment can be issued.
Their claim, therefore, does not call for any further
consideration.
12. The O.A. stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ sm /
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:50+05'30'