Absence of Periodic Recruitment Does Not Confer Right to Age Relaxation for Public Employment

The applicant, a native of Mahe holding B.Ed., M.Ed., and SET qualifications, sought a direction for age relaxation to be considered for the post of Lecturer (History) under Notification No. 1566/EFM/H/2023 dated 14.08.2023

The applicant registered with the Employment Exchange in 2006 and argued that because the respondents failed to conduct recruitment since then, she had surpassed the prescribed age limit of 30 years (as an OBC candidate) by reaching 44 years of age

She submitted representations for age relaxation to participate in the walk-in selection scheduled for 25.08.2023 but received no response

Notably, the applicant failed to submit a formal application for the post and did not possess the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a direction for relaxation of the upper age limit for the post of Lecturer (History) on the grounds of delayed recruitment by the State

2. Whether the applicant meets the mandatory eligibility criteria, including statutory qualifications and procedural requirements, for the subject post

The court applied the recruitment criteria set forth in Notification No. 1566/EFM/H/2023, which prescribed an upper age limit of 30 years

It strictly adhered to the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Notification dated 23.08.2010, which mandates the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as a compulsory qualification for teacher appointments

The Tribunal further relied on the principle that age relaxation is not an inherent right and cannot be granted in the absence of specific enabling provisions within the Recruitment Rules, especially when the candidate has significantly exceeded the maximum age even with applicable reservations

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant’s claim against the statutory requirements and found multiple fatal deficiencies. Firstly, it noted that the applicant had not even submitted a formal application for the post, relying solely on representations for age relaxation

Secondly, the gap between the prescribed age limit (30 years) and the applicant’s age (44 years) was deemed too substantial to justify relaxation, regardless of the delay in recruitment cycles

Critically, the Tribunal observed that the applicant lacked the TET qualification, which is a non-negotiable mandatory requirement under NCTE guidelines for school teacher appointments

Consequently, the Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant was both age-barred and academically unqualified per the NCTE norms, no legal basis existed to compel the respondents to entertain her candidature

The Tribunal found the application devoid of merit as the applicant did not meet the mandatory age and qualification criteria. The Original Application was dismissed with no order as to costs