T PARTHIBAN vs UT OF PUDUCHERRY

1 of 8
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/00177 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
T. Parthiban, Age – 36,
S/o. Thangaraj
No.88, Atthipadugai Road,
Thirunallar Commune,
Karaikal,
Puducherry - 609 607. …......Applicant.
(Advocate: M/s. 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 " II Age Limit" in the Notification
nd
issued by the 2 respondent, Vide Proceedings No.3326 / DSE /
Estt.II /D/ 2023, dated 18.01.2024, 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
nd
the Post of Lecturer as notified in the Notification issued by the 2
respondent, Vide Proceedings No.3326 / DSE / Estt.II/D/ 2023, dated
18.01.2024, 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 he has completed BA in 2011, MA (English) in
2016, acquired B.A. degree in 2018 and is registered in the employment exchange.
The applicant is presently working as a Primary School Teacher at Government
Primary School, Koonichempet, Puducherry, and joined service in the year 2014. The
last recruitment for the post of Lecturer was conducted in 2015 and after 9 years, the
respondents have now issued notification in 2024 inviting applications to fill 67 posts
of Lecturer (Group-B, Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial). The said notification, the age
limit as on 17/02/2024 is fixed as 30 years and the upper age limit for SC category is
relaxable for 5 years. The applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and his

3 of 8
age is 36 years. Thus, he is eligible as per the notification on all criteria except the
age limit.
3. The Government of Puducherry has issued G.O. Ms. No. 50 dated 29.07.2022,
which gives age relaxation of two years over and above the upper age limit
prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules. The said G.O. was issued keeping in
mind the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. While fixing the upper age limit for the
post of Lecturer in the present notification, the respondents ought to have taken into
consideration the relaxation given vide G.O. Ms. No. 50 dated 29.07.2022.
4. As per recruitment rules to the post of Lecturers, the Lieutenant Governor is
competent authority to relax any of the provisions of the rules. Hence the applicant
submitted representation but the respondents have not acted upon the same. Since the
last date for making online application ends on 17/02/2024 and the last date for
submission of hard copy applications ends on 23/02/2024, the applicant has filed this
OA for the aforestated relief.
5. By way of interim relief, this Tribunal, vide order dated 21.02.2024, permitted
the applicant to submit his application for the said post and directed the respondents
to accept his 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

4 of 8
the Tribunal.
6. Respondents have entered appearance through their counsel Mr. Syed Mustafa
and filed their reply statement contending 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 27. In addition to it, 21 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. It is further contended that the Government of Puducherry is not vested with
powers to grant age relaxation beyond the prescribed age limit for group '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.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted 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

5 of 8
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. As there is no merit in this OA, he accordingly sought
dismissal of this O.A.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the counsels on both sides and
perused the record.
10. Admittedly the applicant is over-aged. However, applicant is seeking age
relaxation of two years as per G.O. No. 50. In this regard, it is stated by the counsel
for the respondents that the power to grant age relaxation to Group-B posts is not
vested with the Government of Puducherry and the proposal to grant one time
measure was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs and
DOP&T but the same has not agreed to.
11. 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.
12. In the case of Union of India & Ors vs. Shivbachan Rai [ (2001) 9 SCC

6 of 8
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.
13. 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
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."
14. 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.".
15. 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 -

7 of 8
"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.".
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. 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].

8 of 8
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
(2011) 12
by this Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan [
SCC 85]
and Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of U.P [(2019) 17 SCC 373].
18. 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 27 candidates
who have submitted offline applications based on the interim orders passed by this
Tribunal and 21 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 13:14:21
+05'30'
A.S.V. Sagar
P.S., CAT,
Chennai Bench.