A candidate who knowingly participates cannot seek age relaxation after recruitment concludes.

The applicant challenged a Deficiency Memo dated 10 August 2026, by which his candidature for the post of Drawing Teacher under Advertisement No. 02/2024, Post Code 811/24, was treated as ineligible principally on the ground of age.

The applicant asserted that he had more than ten years’ experience as a Drawing Teacher and sought consideration of his case for relaxation, including age relaxation, along with consequential appointment-related reliefs.

He had participated in the examination despite the absence of any prescribed age relaxation and raised the issue at a later stage, after the recruitment process had concluded.

The respondents opposed the application, contending that the advertisement was incomplete and that the recruitment process had already been completed, making it impermissible to alter the eligibility conditions retrospectively.

Whether the applicant could seek consideration for age relaxation under Rule 5 of the 2015 Recruitment Rules after participating in the recruitment process with knowledge that no such relaxation was provided.

Whether the recruitment rules or eligibility conditions could be relaxed or altered after conclusion of the recruitment process.

Whether the applicant was entitled to directions for consideration of his representation, preservation of a vacancy, or appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Rule 5 of the Directorate of Education, Drawing Teacher (Excluding Geometrical and Mechanical Drawing) Recruitment Rules, 2015 permits the Government, by an order recording reasons in writing and in consultation with the UPSC, to relax any provision of the rules in respect of any class or category of persons.

Eligibility conditions or the “rules of the game” cannot ordinarily be altered after completion of the recruitment process, particularly at the instance of a candidate who participated with knowledge of the applicable conditions.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had participated in the examination despite knowing that the applicable recruitment framework did not provide the claimed age relaxation.

Since the respondents stated that the recruitment process had already concluded, the Tribunal held that entertaining a request for relaxation at that stage would effectively alter the eligibility conditions retrospectively.

The applicant’s reliance on Rule 5 did not justify interference because the power to relax was discretionary and could not be invoked after completion of the selection process to reopen the eligibility requirements.

The Tribunal therefore found no merit in directing reconsideration of the applicant’s candidature or preserving a vacancy.

It declined to quash the Deficiency Memo, direct consideration of age relaxation under Rule 5, preserve a vacancy, or order appointment.

No order was made as to costs.