PRITI DUA vs GNCTD

1


Item No. 28 - Court 3

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi

OA No. 3757/2023

Order reserved on: 10.08.2026

Order pronounced on: 01.09.2026

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)

Priti Dua
Aged about 47 years
W/o Sh. Harish Madan
R/o 1/22, 2nd Floor, Opposite Community Centre, Geeta
Colony,
Delhi-110031
Post: TGT (Social Science) (Female)
Post Code: 40/21
Group - B

..Applicant(s)

(By Advocates: Mr. Anuj Agarwal with Mr. Nikhil Pawar and Mr.
Shubham Bahl)

Versus

1. The Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
Government of NCT of Delhi
6, Raj Niwas Marg, Ludlow Castle, Civil Lines, New Delhi 110054

2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Special Secretary (Services),
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002

3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Chairman
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092

4. Directorate of Education
Through the Director of Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054




SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
...Respondent(s)
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)

2


Item No. 28 - Court 3


O R D E R
Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)
The issue in the present OA is concerning the age relaxation
for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female) (Post Code: 40/21)
in Directorate of Education, GNCTD.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, whose
date of birth is 09.04.1976 and who belongs to the Unreserved
(UR) category, was appointed as TGT (Social Science) Guest
Teacher in the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of
Delhi, in the year 2013 and has continued to work
uninterruptedly since then.
3. Vide Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019, age relaxation
was made available to Guest Teachers to the extent of the
number of years for which they had actually worked, subject to a
maximum upper limit of five years.
4. DSSSB issued Advertisement No. 02/2021 dated
12.05.2021 inviting applications for, inter alia, the post of TGT
(Social Science) (Female), Post Code 40/21, in the Directorate of
Education. The closing date for applications was 24.06.2021.
The upper age limit for women candidates was 40 years.
5. The applicant applied for the said post and appeared in
the written examination conducted by DSSSB on 09.10.2021.
She secured 128.29 marks out of 200 marks, as against the UR
cut-off of 115.21 marks prescribed for uploading the e-dossier.
She accordingly uploaded her e-dossier within the prescribed
period. Vide Result Notice No. 169 dated 24.08.2022, the
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
applicant was provisionally nominated/selected for appointment.
She had also secured marks higher than those obtained by the
last selected candidate in the UR category, who had secured
120.36 marks.
6. That, vide email dated 31.08.2022, the applicant was
informed that her e-dossier had been forwarded to the
Directorate of Education for appointment. Thereafter, a

3


Item No. 28 - Court 3

Deficiency Memo dated 06.02.2023 was issued to her, to which
she submitted a reply dated 01.03.2023.
7. The applicant contends that despite her selection and
having secured marks above the cut-off as well as the marks of
the last selected UR candidate, the respondents did not treat her
as being within the prescribed upper-age limit. She consequently
made representations and also served a legal notice dated
17.03.2023 upon the respondents.
8. Aggrieved of the Deficiency Memo dated, the applicant had
earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 947/2023,
which was disposed of vide order dated 10.04.2023. Alleging
non-compliance with the said order, she preferred CP No.
385/2023. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings,
the Directorate of Education passed the impugned order dated
09.06.2023 cancelling the applicant's candidature for the post of
TGT (Social Science) (Female), Post Code 40/21, on the ground
relating to her eligibility/upper-age limit.
9. Aggrieved of the same, she approached the Tribunal again
by way of the instant OA, seeking the following relief:-
“ (i) Set aside the impugned Order dated 09.06.2023, issued by the
Directorate of Education, whereby the candidature of the applicant (Roll
No. 324040101386) for appointment on the post of TGT (Social Science)
(Female) (Post Code: 40/21) in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of
Delhi was cancelled by the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of
Delhi;
(ii) Set aside the impugned Recruitment Rules for the post of TGT (Social
Science), as notified by the Secretary Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in
the Official Gazette vide Notification dated 11.12.1991 to the extent it
fails to provide the age relaxation for women candidates upto 42 years
of age;
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
(iii) Set aside the impugned Advertisement No. 02/21 dated 12.05.2021
issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to the
extent it fails to provide age relaxation for women candidate upto 42
years of age;
(iv) Set aside the impugned Notice dated 26.06.2021, issued by the
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to the extent it fails
to provide the upper age limit upto 42 years for women candidates
seeking appointment on the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female) (Post
Code 40/21) in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi;

4


Item No. 28 - Court 3

(v) Set aside the impugned Order dated 06.03.2020, issued by the Lt.
Governor whereby Notification dated 01.11.1980 was withdrawn by the
Lt. Governor;
(vi) Set aside the impugned Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019,
issued by the Special Secretary (Services), Services Department,
(Branch-IV), Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the extent it fails to provides the
age relaxation to the Guest Teachers to number of years they have
actually worked with the respondents and has restricted the age
relaxation upto maximum upper age limit of 5 years;
(vii) Direct the respondents to grant the age relaxation of 02 months and
25 days to the applicant for appointment on the post of TGT (Social
Science) (Female) (Post Code 40/21) in Directorate of Education, Govt. of
NCT of Delhi;
(viii) Declare that the upper age limit for appointment on the post of TGT
(Social Science) (Female) (Post Code 40/21) in Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi is 42 years and, accordingly, my client is within
the upper age limit for appointment on the post of TGT (Social Science)
(Female) (Post Code 40/21) in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of
Delhi;
(ix) Consider the candidature of my client for appointment on the post of
TGT (Social Science) (Female) (Post Code 40/21) in Directorate of
Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi by considering her as within the upper
age limit for appointment on the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female)
(Post Code 40/21) in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi;
(x) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in
the interest of justice.”
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant had been working continuously as a Guest Teacher
(TGT Social Science) in the Directorate of Education since 2013
and possessed the requisite qualifications and substantial
experience in the subject in question. It was further submitted
that the applicant had secured marks higher than those
obtained by the last selected candidate in the UR category. He
draws attention to the eligibility conditions of the said post,
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
which are reproduced herein below for clarity:-
“ Below 32 vears, Age Relaxation will be given as per the table at para
7.
The contractual employees working against teaching posts will be
eligible for one time relaxation in upper age limit up to maximum
period of 5 years . The quantum of age relaxation will be subject to
number of years spend in the department on contract basis provided,
they have worked for at least 120 days in a particular academic year.
The terms & conditions in details are mentioned Services
Department's Office memorandum No. F. 19(1 1)12015/S-IV/1751-

5


Item No. 28 - Court 3

1756 dated 11/06/2019. (Annexure-1)”
11. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, in terms
of the Recruitment Rules, the prescribed upper age limit was 30
years, with relaxation up to 40 years in the case of female
candidates. It was submitted that the DoPT Notification dated
21.12.1998 subsequently enhanced the upper age limit for direct
recruitment from 30 years to 32 years. According to learned
counsel, since the earlier prescription of 40 years for female
candidates was itself relatable to the basic upper age limit of 30
years, the enhancement of the basic upper age limit by two years
necessarily carried with it a corresponding enhancement of the
upper age limit for female candidates from 40 years to 42 years .
It was, therefore, contended that the applicant was entitled to be
treated as eligible up to the age of 42 years on account of the
female-candidate relaxation.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that, in addition to the
aforesaid relaxation available to female candidates, the applicant
was entitled to the benefit of the further age relaxation available
to Guest Teachers under the Office Memorandum dated
11.06.2019. The said OM provided for age relaxation
corresponding to the number of years for which a Guest Teacher
had actually worked, subject to a maximum of five years.
According to learned counsel, the applicant was therefore
entitled to the 10 years' relaxation available to a female
candidate and the further 5 years' relaxation available to a Guest
Teacher, both operating cumulatively. It was submitted that, on
such computation, the applicant would fall within the
permissible age limit and her marginal deficiency of 2 months
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
and 25 days would stand covered.
13. Learned counsel relied upon Archaeological Survey of
India & Ors. v. Niraj Kumar Sinha, WP(C) Nos. 14838-
39/2006, decided on 20.09.2006, MANU/DE/9165/2006 , in
support of the submission that the applicant was entitled to the
benefit of the Notification dated 21.12.1998 issued by the DoPT,
whereby the upper age limit for recruitment through direct open

6


Item No. 28 - Court 3

competitive examination to civil posts had been increased by two
years.
14. Further, learned counsel relied upon Richa Mishra v.
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 179 , and
submitted that the provisions relating to age relaxation for
women candidates were intended to facilitate their participation
in public employment and ought to be construed in furtherance
of the constitutional objective of women's empowerment.
15. Learned counsel also relied upon the applicant's long
teaching experience and placed reliance upon Bhagwati Prasad
v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, (1990) 1
SCC 361 , to submit that experience was an important
consideration in assessing suitability. It was submitted that the
applicant was not seeking relaxation of any educational
qualification but only a limited relaxation in the upper age limit.
16. The reliance upon OA No. 1368/2022, Pawanjit Kaur v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. , also does not assist the
applicant. In the said case, the issue principally concerned the
computation of the applicant's period of continuous contractual
service for determining the age relaxation available under the
Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019, and the Tribunal, on the
peculiar facts thereof, directed consideration of the applicant's
case by the Competent Authority. The said decision did not hold
that the statutory ceiling of 40 years prescribed for female
candidates under the Recruitment Rules could be enhanced to
42 years, nor did it create any further right to age relaxation
beyond the prescribed limit. The facts and issue in Pawanjit
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
Kaur (supra) are, therefore, distinguishable from the present
case.
17. Learned counsel submitted that, in Pawanjit Kaur
(supra) , the Tribunal had also noticed the judgment in Shelja
Dhama & Ors. v. DSSSB & Anr., OA No. 1039/2021, decided
on 21.06.2021 , and had recognised that the age limit for
women candidates for the concerned TGT posts was 40 years

7


Item No. 28 - Court 3

pursuant to the said decision. It was submitted that the
Tribunal had nevertheless, having regard to the peculiar facts of
the case and the applicant's continuous service as a Guest
Teacher, directed the respondents to place her case before the
Competent Authority for grant of age relaxation.
18. Learned counsel further relied upon State of
Chhattisgarh v. Richa Mishra, (2016) 4 SCC 179 , as noticed
in Pawanjit Kaur , to submit that provisions relating to age
relaxation in favour of women candidates should be interpreted
in a manner which advances the object of women's
empowerment and participation in public employment.
19. It was accordingly submitted that, in the applicant's case
also, her long and continuous service as a Guest Teacher, her
merit in the selection process and the marginal deficiency of only
2 months and 25 days justified consideration of her case by the
Competent Authority for grant of the requisite relaxation,
particularly when the applicant had otherwise secured marks
higher than the last selected UR candidate.
20. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the applicant's case
deserved consideration in view of her long and continuous
service as a Guest Teacher, her merit in the selection process
and the fact that this was her last opportunity to participate in
the recruitment process. Reliance was also placed upon Social
Jurist, A Lawyers Group v. Dharmender Sharma & Ors., 2018
(167) DRJ 376 , to contend that delay in filling up teaching
vacancies had prejudiced candidates such as the applicant.
21. Vide order dated 01.07.2025, this Tribunal had, after
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
hearing learned counsel for the parties, directed the respondents
to furnish further instructions/details regarding the manner in
which age relaxation was to be granted to the applicant,
particularly in view of the fact that she was found to be aged 45
years, 2 months and 25 days as on the cut-off date, i.e.
04.07.2021, and the matter was thereafter listed as part-heard.

8


Item No. 28 - Court 3

Pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed an additional
affidavit.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents relying on the
additional affidavit, submitted that the applicant had been found
over-aged upon scrutiny of her documents. It was submitted
that, as on the relevant cut-off date, i.e. 04.07.2021, the
applicant was aged 45 years, 2 months and 25 days , whereas
the maximum permissible age, after extending the applicable
relaxations, was only 45 years. Consequently, she was over-aged
by 2 months and 25 days .
23. Learned counsel submitted that the Recruitment Rules for
the post of TGT prescribed the basic upper age limit as below 30
years, relaxable up to 40 years in the case of female candidates.
It was submitted that the position regarding the age relaxation
available to female candidates had already been settled by this
Tribunal in OA No. 1039/2021, Shelja Dhama & Ors. v.
DSSSB & Anr., decided on 21.06.2021 , wherein the Tribunal
had directed the respondents to extend the benefit of relaxation
of age limit up to 40 years to women candidates for the post of
TGT. Relevant portion of the same, reads as under:-
“12. We, therefore, allow all the O.As . and direct that the DSSSB shall
extend the benefit of relaxation of age limit upto 40 years to the women
candidates for the post of TGT. Since many candidates could not upload
their applications in view of this stipulation, the DSSSB shall extend the
date by one week, by putting on its website, a notification to the effect
that the women candidates upto the age of 40 years can also apply.”
24. Learned counsel submitted that, pursuant to the Office
Memorandum dated 11.06.2019, eligible Guest Teachers were
also entitled to age relaxation corresponding to their service,
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
subject to a maximum of five years. It was submitted that the
applicant had already been extended the benefit of the said
relaxation. Thus, after taking into account the relaxation
available to her as a female candidate up to 40 years and the
further relaxation of five years available to her as a Guest
Teacher, the applicant's maximum permissible age stood at 45
years .

9


Item No. 28 - Court 3

25. It was submitted that the applicant's contention that the
two relaxations could be computed by first taking the upper age
limit to 42 years and thereafter adding five years was
misconceived. The respondents submitted that the DoPT OM
dated 21.12.1998 enhancing the upper age limit by two years
could not be construed as enhancing the specific ceiling of 40
years prescribed for female candidates under the Recruitment
Rules to 42 years. The statutory Recruitment Rules specifically
provided for relaxation up to 40 years for female candidates, and
the said ceiling had to be respected.
26. Learned counsel further submitted that the decision in
Shelja Dhama (supra) was directly applicable to the present
case. It was submitted that the Tribunal therein had examined
the very Recruitment Rules dated 11.12.1991 and had held that
the provision granting relaxation up to 40 years to female
candidates continued to operate notwithstanding withdrawal of
the earlier letter dated 01.11.1980 by the Lt. Governor. The
Tribunal had consequently directed DSSSB to extend the benefit
of age relaxation up to 40 years to women candidates.
27. Learned counsel submitted that, therefore, the applicant
could not seek a declaration that the upper age limit for female
candidates was 42 years. The respondents had already extended
the benefit of the female-candidate relaxation in accordance with
the Recruitment Rules and Shelja Dhama (supra) and had
thereafter extended the additional five-year relaxation available
to the applicant as a Guest Teacher.
28. It was further submitted that there was no provision
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
under the applicable Rules or Office Memorandum for any
further relaxation of 2 months and 25 days after the applicant
had exhausted the maximum permissible relaxation. The fact
that the applicant had secured higher marks than the last
selected candidate, or had rendered long service as a Guest
Teacher, could not confer upon her a right to claim an age
relaxation beyond the maximum prescribed under the applicable
rules.

10


Item No. 28 - Court 3

29. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant's reliance
upon OA No. 1368/2022, Pawanjit Kaur v. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi & Ors. , was misplaced. It was submitted that the said
decision turned upon the peculiar facts relating to computation
of the period of continuous contractual service and did not lay
down any proposition that a candidate could claim age
relaxation beyond the maximum permissible age under the
governing provisions. The respondents contended that the
applicant herein had already been granted the permissible Guest
Teacher relaxation and that no comparable ambiguity existed in
the present case.
30. It was thus submitted that the applicant had exhausted all
the age relaxations available to her and, having crossed the
maximum permissible age of 45 years by 2 months and 25 days
as on 04.07.2021, her candidature had rightly been cancelled.
31. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
pleadings on record
32. The controversy in the present matter, in our considered
view, lies within a narrow compass. The applicant was aged 45
years, 2 months and 25 days as on the cut-off date, i.e.
04.07.2021 . Her candidature was cancelled on the ground that
she had exceeded the maximum permissible age. The applicant,
on the other hand, claims that she was entitled to an upper age
limit of 42 years as a female candidate and, in addition thereto,
the further age relaxation available to Guest Teachers, which,
according to her, would take the permissible age to 47 years.
33. The question, however, has to be examined from the
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
statutory Recruitment Rules governing the post. The
Recruitment Rules notified on 11.12.1991 in the Gazette
Notification , which are applicable to the post in question,
prescribe the upper age limit and specifically provide that the
same is “relaxable upto 40 years in case of female
candidates.” Thus, the Rules themselves prescribe the extent to
which the age limit is relaxable in the case of female candidates.

11


Item No. 28 - Court 3

34. The significance of the aforesaid provision cannot be
understated. The Recruitment Rules were duly framed and
notified in the Gazette and, therefore, constitute the statutory
framework governing recruitment to the post. Once the Rules
had been so notified, the age limit prescribed therein became
operative and binding. The maximum permissible age for a
female candidate, under the Rules, was accordingly 40 years .
35. The aforesaid provision came to be considered by this
Tribunal in Shelja Dhama & Ors. v. DSSSB & Anr., OA No.
1039/2021, decided on 21.06.2021 . In the said case, this
Tribunal examined the Recruitment Rules dated 11.12.1991 and
recognised the provision granting relaxation of age up to 40
years to female candidates and directed the respondents to
extend the benefit of such relaxation to women candidates for
the post of TGT.
36. Thus, Shelja Dhama (supra) reinforces the position
emerging from the statutory Rules themselves, namely, that the
maximum age up to which relaxation could be granted to a
female candidate under the applicable Recruitment Rules was
40 years .
37. Learned counsel for the applicant sought to contend that,
since the general upper age limit had subsequently been
enhanced from 30 years to 32 years by the DoPT Notification
dated 21.12.1998, the corresponding age limit for female
candidates should also be treated as enhanced from 40 years to
42 years. We are, however, unable to accept this submission.
38. The reason is fundamental. The Recruitment Rules dated
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
11.12.1991 had already been framed and notified in the Gazette
and had specifically prescribed the maximum age for female
candidates as 40 years . Any subsequent alteration of that
statutory prescription would necessarily have to be brought
about in accordance with law by an appropriate amendment,
substitution or subsequent statutory notification governing the
said Rules. No such subsequent amendment to the Recruitment

12


Item No. 28 - Court 3

Rules, enhancing the ceiling of 40 years to 42 years, has been
placed before us.
39. In the absence of any such amendment, we cannot
supplement the statutory Rules by importing into them a
different age limit merely because the general upper age limit
may have subsequently been enhanced under another
notification.
40. In other words, the question before us is not whether the
applicant is entitled to a 10-year relaxation as a female
candidate. The Recruitment Rules themselves recognise such
relaxation. The question is the outer limit up to which that
relaxation can operate. That outer limit, as expressly stipulated
in the Recruitment Rules dated 11.12.1991 and recognised in
Shelja Dhama (supra) , is 40 years.
41. It is in this context that the reliance placed by learned
counsel for the applicant upon Archaeological Survey of India
& Ors. v. Niraj Kumar Sinha, WP(C) Nos. 14838-39/2006,
decided on 20.09.2006, MANU/DE/9165/2006 , does not
advance her case. Even assuming the applicability of the DoPT
Notification dated 21.12.1998 enhancing the general upper age
limit, the same cannot, in the absence of an amendment to the
Recruitment Rules governing the present post, be read as having
altered the specific statutory ceiling of 40 years prescribed
therein for female candidates.
42. Likewise, the reliance upon Richa Mishra v. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 179 , cannot result in
enlargement of an express statutory prescription. The applicant
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of the age relaxation
provided under the Recruitment Rules; the question is only as to
the extent thereof.
43. We may now consider the further relaxation available to
the applicant as a Guest Teacher under the Office Memorandum
dated 11.06.2019. The respondents have stated in their
additional affidavit that the applicant was extended the benefit of

13


Item No. 28 - Court 3

the said relaxation, subject to the maximum of five years
prescribed therein. Thus, after taking the female-candidate
relaxation up to 40 years and the further Guest Teacher
relaxation of five years, the maximum permissible age available
to the applicant stood at 45 years .
44. The reliance upon OA No. 1368/2022, Pawanjit Kaur v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. , also does not assist the
applicant. The said decision turned upon the facts and the
computation of contractual service for the purpose of the
relaxation available under the Office Memorandum dated
11.06.2019. It cannot be construed as authorising the Tribunal
to enlarge the maximum age prescribed under statutory
Recruitment Rules.
45. Similarly, the applicant's reliance upon Syed Mehedi v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., WP(C) No. 1200/2016, decided
on 02.07.2019 , does not confer upon her any right to an age
limit beyond that prescribed by the applicable Recruitment
Rules. A power of relaxation, even where available, cannot be
exercised so as to rewrite the statutory age limit in the absence
of the conditions necessary for such exercise.
46. We have also considered the applicant's reliance upon her
long service as a Guest Teacher, her performance in the
selection process and the fact that she had secured marks
higher than the last selected candidate in the UR category. These
circumstances may explain the applicant's grievance, but they
cannot override the statutory eligibility condition. Merit can be
considered only amongst candidates who satisfy the
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
prescribed eligibility conditions. Likewise, her long service has
already been taken into account to the extent of the Guest
Teacher relaxation permissible under the Office Memorandum
dated 11.06.2019.
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. v. Shanti Devi, Civil Appeal No. 5207 of 2022, decided
on 08.08.2022 , has held that no individual candidate can claim

14


Item No. 28 - Court 3

a vested right to age relaxation and that eligibility criteria have
to be uniformly applied, observing that selective grant of age
relaxation would cause prejudice in the selection process and
render it arbitrary. In the present case, the applicant cannot
seek a further relaxation merely because she falls short of the
prescribed maximum age by 2 months and 25 days. Once the
applicable Recruitment Rules prescribe the outer age limit and
the permissible relaxations have already been exhausted, the
same cannot be enlarged in the individual case of the applicant.
48. Once the maximum permissible age under the applicable
statutory framework has been exhausted, the Tribunal cannot
create an additional relaxation merely because the excess is
marginal.
49. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the
Recruitment Rules dated 11.12.1991 are the governing statutory
instrument . They specifically prescribe that the age is relaxable
up to 40 years in the case of female candidates. The said
provision has also been recognised in Shelja Dhama (supra) . In
the absence of any subsequent statutory amendment or
notification altering the said ceiling, the permissible age for a
female candidate cannot be treated as 42 years by way of an
interpretation which would effectively supplement or modify the
notified Rules.
50. Consequently, after extending the permissible five-year
relaxation available to the applicant as a Guest Teacher, the
maximum permissible age stood at 45 years. Since the applicant
was 45 years, 2 months and 25 days old as on 04.07.2021 , she
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
exceeded the maximum permissible age by 2 months and 25
days.
51. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the
applicant has failed to establish any entitlement to an upper age
limit beyond 45 years or to any further relaxation so as to cover
the aforesaid deficiency. The cancellation of her candidature vide
order dated 09.06.2023, therefore, calls for no interference.

15


Item No. 28 - Court 3

52. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. Pending MA(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.


(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member(A) Member(J)
/ss/

SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA