R VIJAYAKUMAR vs INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH

1 of 13
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/00457 of 2024
.
rd
DATED WEDNESDAY, THE 23 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
R. Vijayakumar,
ICMR-Research Associate,
Prof. K.Sekar Lab,
Computational and Data Sciences,
Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore,
Karnataka-560012. ...Applicant
(Advocate: Mr. C. Vigneswaran)
Versus
1. National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis (NIRT) - ICMR
Represented by its Director,
No.1, Mayor Sathiyamoorthy Road,
Chetpet,
Chennai-600 031;
2. The Administrative Officer
ICMR-National Institute for Research in
Tuberculosis
#1, Mayor Sathiyamoorthy Road
Chetpet, Chennai - 600 031;
3. Indian Council of Medical Research
Represented by its Director General
V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan, P.O. Box No. 4911,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029, India.
…….Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC)

2 of 13
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) To pass an order to quash the Ref No. NIRT/Grievance/2023-
nd
24/4952 dated 15.03.2024 passed by the 2 respondent and
st nd

(ii) To consequently direct the 1 and 2 respondent grant age
relaxation to the applicant under the category of Candidates working
under ICMR funded Project and issue appointment order to the
Applicant for the post of Technical Assistant in Biochemistry/Clinical
pharmacology at their institution.
(iii) Pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.”
2. The case of the applicant is that he obtained Diploma in Medical Laboratory
Technology in the year 2007 from a recognized institution, while pursuing his

Bachelors Degree in Biochemistry in the year 2008. Thereafter, he completed his
Post Graduation and Ph. D in the same subject of Biochemistry in the year 2010 and
2018 respectively. He belongs to the Schedule Caste Category. He has working
experience of being a Research Associate in the Indian Institute of Science at
Bangalore from the year 2019-2021 and thereafter a brief stint as a post-doctoral
fellow at the Madras University and thereafter, from 01.03.2023, he is working with

3 of 13
the respondent as a Research Associate in ICMR funded fellowship research program
till date.
3. The applicant submits that while he was working in University of Madras, the
rd
3 respondent had called for research proposals under Fellowship Program for the
year 2021 on 17.11.2021. Since the applicant was eligible and satisfied the criteria's
rd
as per the notification issued by the 3 respondent, he applied for the said fellowship
rd
programme and the same was technically approved by the 3 respondent on
28.03.2022. Though the above Fellowship programme was approved as early as
28.03.2022, the applicant received the order of appointment only on 28/2/2023,
almost after a year from the technical approval, due to administrative delays. The
above programme was for a limited period of one year and thereafter, it is renewable
every year for a maximum period of 3 years. The applicant is currently working on
the above Fellowship programme and has been extended for the year 2024-2025.
st
4. Vide notification dated 26.09.2023, the 1 respondent had called applications to
fill up 60 regular posts of Technical Assistants in Group B category to be appointed in
nd
the 2 Respondent Institute. The age limit as prescribed in the notification was not
exceeding 30 years. As the applicant belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, he
was eligible for relaxation of 5 years in the upper age limit. Further, as per the terms
and conditions specified in the notifications, candidates working in ICMR-funded

4 of 13
project continuously shall also be eligible for age relaxation upto 5 years or
equivalent to the project service rendered by them, whichever is less. Though the
applicant was over the age of 35 years, he had applied for the said post of Technical
Assistant on the premise that he has been working under an ICMR-funded project
namely, Fellowship Programme, on the date of issuance of notification, he was under
the impression that his candidature would be considered for selection to the said post.
Since the applicant is over-aged only by 3 days, the respondent should have
considered it as a special case, since the applicant is working under the project of the
very same institution.
5. While submitting his application, the applicant had clearly mentioned his age
and also his previous association with the respondents. The applicant was allotted
online application number 23070010110 and was issued admit card for appearing in
the exam on 11/12/2023. The results of the Examination conducted on 11/12/2023
was released by the respondents and the applicant was provisionally selected on the
basis of merit and was asked to come for document verification by the respondents
vide notice dated 12.01.2024. On 05.02.2024, the respondents issued a list of
candidates with their total marks along with additional weightage marks obtained by
them and the applicant was listed at serial number 20 in that list with total marks of
60.615. The applicant stood first among the Schedule Caste category in the said list
for selection to the post of Technical Assistant (Biochemistry/Clinical pharmacology).

5 of 13
6. Pursuant to the select list, applicant was called for certificate verification on
rd th
23 and 24 of January 2024. However, as he was not aware of the published notice
for document verification on the website, he was not able to appear on the said dates.
nd
However, the respondents directed the applicant through email dated 2 February
th
2024 to appear for certificate verification on or before 6 February 2024.
Accordingly, the applicant appeared with all the requisite documents for verification
on 05.02.2024. Further the applicant had produced the letter obtained from ICMR
regarding his previous experience in the ICMR project and requested to consider his
th
case for age relaxation. The Second respondent by email communication dated 15
March 2024 rejected the request of the applicant on the ground that he had exceeded
the age of 35 years at the time of joining the project on 01.03.2023 and hence, there
cannot be any relaxation as per the recruitment rules and he is not eligible to be
appointed to the said post. Further, applicant was informed through post on
22/03/2024 that his application was placed before a Grievance Committee and the
same has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature as Technical
Assistant resulting in denial of appointment, the applicant filed this OA for the above-
stated relief.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that
denying the age relaxation on the ground that applicant had completed the age of 35
years is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. The respondents have failed to take into

6 of 13
consideration the fact that the applicant had applied to the ICMR funded Project as
early as 2021 and the same was also technically approved in the year 2022 and all the
formalities were over in the year 2022 itself. However, the appointment order was
issued belatedly on 28.02.2023 and therefore, he appealed that the said period must
be excluded for the purpose of granting relaxation to the applicant. The applicant is
short of only 3 days from joining the ICMR project as he had completed 35 years of
age only on 25.02.2023 and therefore, the opportunity of appointment should not be
denied to him. Not granting an opportunity to the applicant before passing the
impugned order violates the principles of natural justice and therefore the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
8. Reply, rejoinder, and reply to rejoinder have been filed by the respective
parties.
9. The respondents have stated that the applicant worked as Research Associate at
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore from 24.06.2019 to 01.07.2021 and worked as
Post-Doctoral Fellow at Center of Advanced Study in Crystallography and
Biophysics, University of Madras from 14.07.2021 to 13.07.2022. After he was
issued an Award of Research Associate fellowship project to work at Computational
and Data Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, he has been working as
Research Associate from 01.03.2023 till date.

7 of 13
10. In response to the notification dated 26/09/2023 to fill up 60 posts of Technical
Assistant (Group B, Non-ministerial), applicant had appeared in the Computer Based
Test held on 11-12-2023 in which he had scored 61.7 marks out of 100. As per NIRT
Corrigendum/Addendum dated 24.11.2023, the minimum essential qualifying marks
for SC category was 50. Though notice for document verification was posted on
12.01.2024 and candidates who were shortlisted based on their marks for
Biochemistry/ Clinical Pharmacology were called for document verification on
24.01.2024, applicant did not appear on that date. An email was sent to him on
02.02.2024 to appear for document verification on or before 06.02.2024 and he
appeared on 05.02.2024. In the Notification dated 26.09.2023, it is clearly mentioned
that age limit for the Technical Assistant post is 30 years as on 08-11-2023 (the last
date of receipt of application) and the upper age limit is relaxable by 5 years for
SC/ST candidates. It was also mentioned that for candidates working in the ICMR
funded project continuously, the upper age shall also be eligible for age relaxation up
to five years or equivalent to the project service rendered by them, whichever is less,
provided he/she has entered into the project service within the prescribed age limit for
the post for which they are applying. As per the experience certificate issued by the
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore dated 24.03.2023, which was submitted by the
applicant for age relaxation to the post of Technical Assistant (Biochemistry/Clinical
Pharmacology), it was noticed that when he had joined ICMR as a Research
Associate on 01/03/2023, he had already attained 35 years of age. As he was
overaged, he could not be considered for the post of Technical Assistant.

8 of 13
11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant's date of birth
is 25-02-1988 and when he joined the ICMR project on 01-03-2023, he had already
exceeded the age limit of 35 years. As regards age relaxation, the OM dated
10/11/2017 issued by ICMR provided that the ICMR Technical Cadre Integrated
Recruitment and Assessment Rules has to be followed scrupulously for future
recruitment/ assessment/promotion in all ICMR institutes/ centre/ headquarters. Rule
12 of the ICMR Technical Cadre Integrated Recruitment and Assessment Rules
provides for age relaxation as under: -
"12. Age Relaxation.- The crucial date to determine the age in case
of direct recruitment shall be the last date of receipt of application.
Age is relaxable for SC/ ST/ OBC/ PWD/ ex-Servicemen candidates
and for Government servants in accordance with the instructions
issued by the DoP&T from time to time in this regard. A person
working in ICMR projects continuously shall also be eligible for
age relaxation up to 5 years, provided he/she has entered into
project service within the prescribed age limit for the post."
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, learned counsel submitted that since the applicant did not enter into the
ICMR project within the prescribed age limit and his age had exceeded 35 years (30
years + 5 years' age relaxation to SC candidates), he was therefore ineligible for age
relaxation as per the abovesaid rules.
12. We have considered the submissions made by the counsels on both sides and
perused the record.

9 of 13
13. It is admitted by the applicant that he is over-aged. However, the applicant
contends that applications for research proposals for Fellowship Program for the year
rd
2021 was called for by the 3 respondent on 17.11.2021 and applicant's research
proposal was technically approved on 28.03.2022 itself. However, the applicant
received the order of appointment only on 28/2/2023, almost after a year from the
technical approval, due to administrative delays and therefore, he contends that
respondents ought to overlook his age which exceeds by only 3 days. It is contended
by the respondents that the date of technical approval of the project cannot be treated
as the date of initiation of the fellowship programme as the process involves further
review by PRC, approval on minutes of PRC, etc., which takes considerable amount
of time. Since the applicant joined as Research Associate on award of individual
fellowship for a tenure of initially one year extendable up to maximum period of 3
years, subject to review of report, the same cannot be combined with extramural
project. As fellowships are being granted for specific research purposes for fixed
duration, the recipients receive stipend for their work and not salary. It is not a job,
but only fellowship and therefore, experience from fellowship cannot be counted.
14. It is observed that the applicant is over aged even after extending 5 years
relaxation in upper age applicable to SC candidates. Further, the notification dated
26/09/2023 specifically mentions the terms and conditions relating to age limit
applicable to all posts which is as under: -

10 of 13
"Candidates working in ICMR-Funded Project continuously shall also
be eligible for age relaxation upto five years or equivalent to the
project service rendered by them, whichever is less, provided he/she
has entered into the project service within the prescribed age limit
for the post for which they are applying."
The said condition so specified is in accordance with Rule 12 of the ICMR Technical
Cadre Integrated Recruitment and Assessment Rules which specifically provides for
age relaxation. It is stated in the said rule that "A person working in ICMR projects
continuously shall also be eligible for age relaxation up to 5 years, provided he/she
has entered into project service within the prescribed age limit for the post."
15. Admittedly, when the applicant joined the ICMR project on 01-03-2023, he
had already exceeded the age limit of 35 years. Therefore, he was clearly ineligible
for age relaxation as per the terms and conditions of the notification as well as Rule
12 of the ICMR Technical Cadre Integrated Recruitment and Assessment Rules.
Therefore, no infirmity can be attributed to the decision of the respondents in this
regard.
16. 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.

11 of 13
17. 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.
18. 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."
19. 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.".

12 of 13
20. 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.".
21. 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.".
22. 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-

13 of 13
"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].
23. In the light of the above referred judgements it is clear that granting of age
relaxation is essentially a matter of policy and it is not for the Courts to give
directions either to change the policy or to give one-time age relaxation. Moreover,
such direction is also legally not feasible as 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)

23.09.2026
asvs
Digitally signed by
ASAPU SRINIVASA
VIDYASAGAR
Date: 2026.10.16
13:52:31 +05'30'
A.S.V. Sagar
P.S., CAT,
Chennai Bench.