S IYYAPPAN vs UT OF PUDUCHERRY

1 of 8
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/00364 of 2023
.
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
1. S. Iyyappan, Son of K. Singaravelu,
Hindu, aged 27 years,
nd
residing at No.3, 2 Street,
Pudu Nagar, Kalmandapam,
Nettapakkam, Puducherry - 605 106;
2. V. Vijayakumar, Son of M. Veerappan,
Hindu, aged 27 years,
nd
residing at No.28, 2 Cross Street,
Pudu Nagar, Kalmandapam,
Nettapakkam, Puducherry-605 106;
3. J. Nellson, Son of D.Johnson Anbalagan,
Christian, aged 26 years,
nd
residing at No.39, 2 Cross,
Thiruveni Nagar, Arumparthapuram,
V.Manaveli,
Puducherry-605 110. ….....Applicants
(Advocate: M/s. V. Ajayakumar)
Versus
1. Union of India, rept. by the
Government of Puducherry
through the Inspector General
of Police, Police Department,
Puducherry;
2. The Under Secretary to
Government (Home)-cum-Head of
Office, Fire Service, Puducherry. …….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 applicants under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking direction to the respondents to extend the
benefit of age relaxation and to consider applicants for appointment to the posts of
Fireman and consequently to appoint them to the post of Fireman and to pass such
other or further orders in the interest of justice and thus render justice.
2. The case of the applicants is that the first applicant has completed B.Sc.
Degree and belongs to Vanniar Community which is declared as MBC and the date of
birth of the first applicant is 28.11.1995. The second applicant holds BCA Degree
and belongs to MBC category and his date of birth is 11.7.1995. The third applicant
holds Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and is a converted Christian
and belongs to OBC category and his date of birth is 23.5.1996. Thus, all the
applicants are fully qualified for the post of Fireman as notified by the second
respondent.
nd
3. The 2 respondent has issued notification dated 4.11.2022 notifying 58
vacancies of Fireman, out of which 16 vacancies are earmarked for MBC but no
vacancy is notified for OBC category. The qualification which is prescribed is a pass
in 10+2 examination or its equivalent and the maximum age limit fixed is 24 years as
on 6.12.2022. It is further provided that the reserved category of SC/ST are entitled

3 of 8
to get a relaxation of 5 years in the upper age limit and 3 years for MBC, EBC,
BCM, OBC etc. It is further provided that as per G.O.Ms. No.50 dated 29.7.2022, 2
years relaxation is also provided due to pandemic.
4. As on the cut-off date of 6.12.2022, the first applicant who is 27 years and 19
days old, is over aged by 19 day; the second applicant who is 27 years, 5 months and
16 days old, is over aged by 5 months and 16 days; and the third applicant is 26
years, 6 months and 9 days old. Since the only method of submitting application was
through on-line mode which started on 7.11.2022, the applicants being over aged,
could not submit their applications on-line.
5. The applicants are entitled to get the benefit of 2 years' relaxation as per
G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 29.7.2022 which makes the upper age limit as 26 years. Denial
of the benefit of the said GO is most arbitrary and is illegal. If the age relaxation of 2
years as per the above GO is applied, applicants will be well within the age limit.
The applicants are also entitled to get age relaxation of 3 years meant for MBC/OBC.
Hence, the applicants are within the age limit. Therefore, applicants submitted their
applications through registered post expecting that the Department would process
their applications, but the applicants did not receive any communication regarding the
acceptance or rejection of their applications. On learning that the selection process
will be conducted within one or two weeks, the applicants are forced to approach this
Hon'ble Tribunal for the aforestated relief.

4 of 8
6. By way of interim relief, this Tribunal, vide order dated 24/04/2023, allowed
the applicants to participate in the ensuing examination in pursuance of advertisement
dated 04/11/2022. However, it was made clear that mere participation in the
examination shall not confer any right on the applicants for appointment.
7. The respondents have entered appearance through their counsel Mr. Syed
Mustafa but despite granting more than 3 years' time for filing reply, the same has not
been filed. However, learned counsel has placed his arguments and submitted that
the age for direct recruits as prescribed in the recruitment rules is between 18 and 22
years. However, in the notification dated 04.11.2022, in para 2 relating to age limit,
the prescribed age is shown as between 18 and 24* years as on 06.12.2022. The
astrix mark '*' has been explained in the said notification as-
“
*Relaxation of two years in the upper age limit prescribed for the
post of Fireman has been provided as a one-time measure as per
G.O.Ms. No. 50 dated 29.07.2022 issued by the Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing)
Puducherry.”.
Therefore, the upper age limit for the post of Fireman has been provided as “between
18 and 24* years of age as on 06.12.2022 ” , after adding two years as per G.O.Ms.
No.50 dated 29.07.2022. Despite granting age relaxation, the applicants are still over
aged. Any further age relaxation beyond the prescribed norms only to the applicants
herein would operate against the settled principles of service jurisprudence and would

5 of 8
upset the recruitment policy of the Department. Hence, there is no merit in the claim
made by the applicants and since applicants are overaged, the OA is liable to be
dismissed.
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
legislatue or executive. Based on a catena of judgements passed by Apex Court, this
Trbunal 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

6 of 8
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
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

7 of 8
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.".
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].

8 of 8
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 many candidates
who have submitted applications or who may not have submitted applications due to
'over-age' factor and the applicants cannot be singled out for such relief by granting
relaxation. Hence, we do not find any merit in this O.A. and the same is 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
13:33:55 +05'30'
A.S.V. Sagar
P.S., CAT,
Chennai Bench.