K RAJAM vs UT OF PONDICHERRY

1 of 7
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/01620 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
K. Rajam, C/o. Kathiresan,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at
No.33, First Cross Street,
Saint Simonpet,
Muthialpet,
Puducherry- 605 003. ...Applicant
(Advocate: Mr. M. Gnanasekar)
Versus
1. Union of India, rep.by
The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Secretary to Government
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(Personnel wing)
Chief Secretariat,
Gubert Avenue,
Puducherry-605 001.
3. The Union Public Service Commission,
UPSC Bhavan,
Shahjahan Road,
UPSC Monsing Area,
New Delhi-110069. …….Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. R. Syed Mustafa)

2 of 7
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:-
“ To direct the Respondents to accept the offline application dated
30.09.2024 of the applicant and to permit the applicant to participate
in the selection process for the post of Assistant pursuant to
Notification No. A-34012/7/E1/2024/DP&AR (EXAM) dated
22.08.2024 by granting suitable age relaxation to the extent necessary
and
i. To direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicants to the posts
of ASSISTANT pursuant to Notification No.A34012/7/E1/2024/DP &
AR (EXAM) dated 22.08.2024 and
ii. to award costs, and pass such further and other orders as may be
deemed and proper and thus render justice.”
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant is a MCS Graduate and has registered her name with
Employment Exchange, Puducherry. She is a person with Benchmark Disability of
75%. She possesses prescribed educational qualification as per the Notification dated
nd
22.08.2024 issued by the 2 respondent to fill up 256 vacancies in the post of
Assistant (Group'B' Non-Gazetted, Ministerial) in the Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (Personal Wing), Puducherry.

3 of 7
3. The age limit prescribed is 30 years as on 24.04.2024 and the upper age is
relaxable for persons with Benchmark Disabilities (as specified in Part-11 of General
Instruction) for 10 years (in respect of reserved applicants, over and above the
admissible relaxation of 5 years for SC/ST and 3 years for MBC/OBC/ EBC/ BCM/
BT). Since the proposed recruitment is taking place after a span of 12 years without
providing special age relaxation, though such age relaxation is granted to Group B
(Non-Gazetted) posts in various other Union Territories, denying the same to the
applicant is arbitrary. As per G.O. Ms. No. 50 dated 29.07.2022, age relaxation of
two years as a one-time has been extended to Group C post but the same is not
nd
extended in the recruitment notification dated 22.08.2024 issued by the 2
respondents. Therefore, applicant is entitled to get age relaxation. Since the applicant
could not upload her application through online mode, she has filed this OA for the
aforestated relief.
4. Despite granting several opportunities, the Respondents have not filed their
reply statement. However, the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. R. Syed
Mustafa submitted that 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. Moreover, similar matters relating to age relaxation,
including O.A. No.1386of 2024 relating to the post of Assistant, have been dismissed
by this Tribunal and therefore, this OA also deserves to be dismissed.

4 of 7
5. Ld counsel 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.
6. The learned counsel also 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 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.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the counsels on both sides and
perused the record.
8. 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.

5 of 7
9. 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.
10. 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."
11. 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.".

6 of 7
12. 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.".

13. 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.".
14. 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-

7 of 7
"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].
15. 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 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
13:46:48 +05'30'
A.S.V. Sagar
P.S., CAT,
Chennai Bench.