N SUSITHRA vs UT OF PUDUCHERRY

1 of 8
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/00228 of 2024
.
nd
DATED TUESDAY, THE 22 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
BETWEEN
N. Susithra, Age-34,
D/o. Nadaradjane,
th
No11, 5 Cross, Nellithope, Nellithope,
Pudupalayam Revenue Village,
Puducherry. ...Applicant
(Advocate: Mr. B. Balavijayan)
Versus
1. The Union of India, Represented by
Secretary to Government (Education),
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry - 605 001;
2. The Director,
Directorate of School Education,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry - 605 005. ….Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. R. Syed Mustafa)

2 of 8
O R A L O R D E R
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)

This Original Application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals' Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
“i) That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records
relating to the impugned Clause "I Age Limit" in the Notification
nd
issued by the 2 respondent, Vide Proceedings No.29118
/DSE/Estt.III /A/ 2023, dated 22.01.2024, and quash the same,
(ii) And further Direct the respondents to relax upper age limit, in
pursuant to the GO.Ms. No.50, dated 29.07.2022 for the recruitment to
the Post of Trained Graduate Teacher as notified in the Notification
nd
issued by the 2 respondent, Vide Proceedings No.29118/DSE/
Estt.III /A/ 2023, dated 22.01.2024, and pass such further or other
orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper and thus render
justice.”
2. It is stated by the applicant that the last recruitment to the post of Trained
Graduate Teacher was conducted in the year 2006. Thereafter no direct recruitment
nd
has been done by the respondent. The 2 Respondent issued notification dated
22/01/2024 inviting applications for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. The
applicant is qualified to be appointed to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher except
for age criteria. The said notification, the age limit as on 22/02/2024 is fixed as 30
years. The applicant belongs to OBC category and is eligible for relaxation of 3 years.
However, the applicant has completed 34 years and is overaged. The applicant is
eligible thus in all respects except age limit.

3 of 8
3. The Government of Puducherry has issued G.O. Ms. No.50 dated 29.7.2022
which gives 2 years relaxation in the upper age limit over and above the upper age
limit prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules as a one-time measure for direct
recruitment, but only to Group C posts. However, no relaxation is granted to the
present recruitment. The action of respondents restricting the benefit only to
recruitment to the post of Group C and denying age relaxation for the post of TGT,
which is a Group 'B' post is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Though the applicant has given representations, the same has not been acted upon by
the respondents. Since the last date for making online application ends on 22/02/2024
and the last date for submission of hard copy application ends on 29/02/2024, the
applicant has approached this Tribunal for the aforestated relief.
4. By way of interim relief, this Tribunal, vide its order dated 29.02.2024,
permitted the applicant to submit her application for the said post and directed the
respondents to accept her application without any objection. However, it was made
clear that the submission of application shall not give any indefeasible right to the
applicant for claim to the post and that the same shall be subject to further orders to
be passed by the Tribunal.
5. Respondents have entered appearance through their counsel Mr. Syed Mustafa
and filed their reply statement contending that the Government of Puducherry is not
vested with powers to grant age relaxation beyond the prescribed age limit for group

4 of 8
'B' posts. Hence, a proposal for relaxation of upper age limit by two years in direct
recruitment for Group-B (Non- Gazetted) posts in the Government of Puducherry as a
one-time measure was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs /
Department of Personnel and Training, but the same has not been agreed to.
6. The respondents further submit that in compliance of the interim order passed
by this Tribunal, the offline application of the applicant was duly received. The total
number of candidates who have submitted offline applications based on the interim
orders passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal is 110. In addition to it, 78 other over-aged
candidates have also submitted offline applications. However, as there is young talent
in abundance, the need for granting relaxation de hors the existing guidelines and
rules is considered unnecessary. Therefore, the Directorate has not granted relaxation
of even one day beyond the limit fixed by the guidelines.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that any age relaxation beyond
the prescribed norms only to the applicant herein would operate against the settled
principles of service jurisprudence and would upset the recruitment policy of the
department. It would forever make the prescription of upper age limit an uncertainty
in the minds of all applicants in respect of all the recruitments to be made by the
department in future. Since there is no merit in this OA, he sought for dismissal of
this O.A.

5 of 8
8. We have considered the submissions made by the counsels on both sides and
perused the record.
9. Admittedly the applicant is over-aged. It is settled law that prescribing of age
limit for a given post and deciding on the extent to which relaxation can be given to
such age limit are essentially matters of policy which lies within the sphere of
legislature or executive. Based on a catena of judgements passed by Apex Court, this
Tribunal has already dismissed a number of cases involving similar issues.
10. In the case of Union of India & Ors vs. Shivbachan Rai [ (2001) 9 SCC
356], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while framing the rules, it is open for
the Government to prescribe age limits or to prescribe the extent to which any
relaxation can be given.
11. In the case of N.S. Siva Kumar vs. Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt. of Tamil
Nadu & Ors. in W.P. Nos. 95, 544 of 2020 and batch matters [(2020) 2 CTC 241],
Hon'ble Madras High Court in its order dated 06.02.2020 has held that it might be
unfair to a large number of candidates who might be similarly situated, but who may
not have applied thinking that they are age barred and therefore, the power of
relaxation cannot be exercised in the manner claimed. It has further held that-
" It is by now well settled that even selection does not give a right of
appointment. Thus, a loss of opportunity on account of delay in the

6 of 8
holding of examination by itself, without there being any mala fides
attributed, cannot be a ground to reinterpret or introduce any further
relaxation in age to the benefit of the petitioners."
12. In the case of Mallikarjuna Rao vs. State of A.P. [( 1990) 2 SCC 707], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "It is neither legal nor proper for the High
Courts or the Administrative Tribunals to issue directions or advisory-sermons to the
executive in respect of the sphere which is exclusively within the domain of the
executive under the Constitution.".

13. In the case of Asif Hameed & Ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
reported in [(1989) Supp. 2 SCC 364], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that -
"When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to
examine the action in accordance with Law and to determine whether
the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and
functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the court must
strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within
its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a
coordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of
judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate
authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or
advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any
matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of
legislature of executive, provided these authorities do not transgress
their constitutional limits or statutory powers.".

7 of 8
14. 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.".
15. In the case of Ankita Thakur & Ors. vs. The H.P. Staff Selection Commission
& Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023), the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 as laid down
by this Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan [(2011) 12
SCC 85] and Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of U.P [(2019) 17 SCC 373].
16. In the light of catena of judgements referred to above, the legal position is that
age relaxation is essentially a matter of policy. It is not for Courts to give directions
to the Government either to change its policy or to give one-time age relaxation.
Moreover, such direction is also legally not feasible as there are around 110
candidates who have submitted offline applications based on the interim orders

8 of 8
passed by this Tribunal and 78 over-aged candidates who have applied off-line
seeking age relaxation, and the applicant cannot be singled out for such relief. Hence,
we do not find any merit in this O.A. and the same is dismissed. Pending MAs, if any,
are also dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M.L. Srivastava) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)
22.09.2026
asvs
Digitally signed by
ASAPU SRINIVASA
VIDYASAGAR
Date: 2026.10.16
13:30:27 +05'30'
A.S.V. Sagar
P.S., CAT,
Chennai Bench.