REKHA V V vs UT OF PUDUCHERRY

1 of 8
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/00172 of 2024

th
DATED WEDNESDAY, THE 11 DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)
Rekha V.V., Daughter of Uthaman
Aged about 34 years, Residing at No. 6/250,
Mariyantavidameethal,
Chalakkara, New Mahe(PO). …......Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. T. Sai Krishnan)
Versus
1. The Union of India represented by
The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry-605001;
2. The Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry-605005;
3. The Director of School Education,
Education Department,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry-605005;
4. Union Public Service Commission
Represented by its Secretary
New Delhi-110069;
5. Department of Personnel and Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, Represented by its Secretary,
Government of India-605009. ….......Respondents
(Advocate: Dr. M. Devendran- R4)
Mr. R. Syed Mustafa)

2 of 8
O R A L O R D E R
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)
This OA is filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief: -
"i. to direct the respondents to grant relaxation of upper age limit
by 1 year 3 months and 26 days over and above the upper age limit
prescribed in the recruitment rule to the post of 'Trained Graduate
Teacher' to the applicant in the direct recruitment to the post of
Trained Graduate Teacher (Group 'B' Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial)
in the Education Department, Puducherry notified vide notification
dated 22.01.2024 bearing Ref.No. 29118/DSE/Estt-III/A/2023 and to
include the applicant in the selection for the post of Trained Graduate
Teacher and to grant appointment in the event of being successful;
ii. Award costs."
2. The applicant states that she is Native of Mahe region in Puducherry and
rd
possesses bachelor’s degree in Economics and B. Ed. The 3 respondent issued
recruitment notification dated 22/01/2024 to fill up 286 vacancies of Trained
Graduate Teacher in various subjects by direct recruitment. Applicant belongs to
OBC category and is eligible to claim reservation and age relaxation. She is 34 years,
3 months and 26 days as on 22/02/2024 and is overaged by 1 year, 3 months and 26
days. Applicant possesses all requisite qualifications for the post of Trained Graduate
Teacher and is fully eligible for appointment to that post, except for the age criteria.
Due to COVID-19 Pandemic, various recruitments including for the post of TGT, was
not conducted by the respondents. Therefore, applicant did not get a single

3 of 8
opportunity to participate in the selection to the post of TGT. In view of the delay in
conducting recruitment, the applicant has now become over-aged. 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 applicant has given a
detailed representation to the Lt. Governor, the same is kept pending without taking
any considered decision. Hence the applicant has filed this OA for the aforestated
relief.
3. By way of interim relief, this Tribunal, vide its order dated 21.02.2024,
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.
4. Respondents have entered appearance through their counsel, Mr. Devendran
and Mr. Syed Mustafa and filed their reply statements contending that the

4 of 8
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.
5. 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.
6. 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
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

5 of 8
dismissal of this O.A.
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.
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-

6 of 8
" 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.".


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

7 of 8
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-
"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

8 of 8
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
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.

(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)

11.08.2026
asvs
Digitally signed by
ASAPU SRINIVASA
VIDYASAGAR
Date: 2026.09.01
13:09:08 +05'30'
A.S.V. Sagar
P.S., CAT,
Chennai Bench.