Age-limit relaxation is a policy matter; tribunals cannot compel one-time exceptions.

The applicant, a Scheduled Caste candidate aged 36 and employed as a Primary School Teacher since 2014, challenged the 18 January 2024 recruitment notification for Lecturer posts. The notification prescribed an upper age limit of 30 years, with a five-year relaxation for Scheduled Caste candidates; the applicant was therefore over the applicable limit

He sought a further two-year relaxation under Puducherry G.O. Ms. No. 50 dated 29 July 2022, issued in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, and relied on the recruitment rules’ provision empowering the Lieutenant Governor to relax rules

On an interim order, his offline application was accepted, but the Tribunal clarified that this gave him no indefeasible right to the post

The respondents stated that a proposal for a one-time two-year relaxation for Group-B (Non-Gazetted) posts had not been agreed to by the Ministry of Home Affairs/DOP&T, and that other over-aged candidates had also applied

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to a further two-year age relaxation under G.O. Ms. No. 50 for the Lecturer recruitment

2. Whether the Tribunal could direct the respondents to grant age relaxation despite the applicable recruitment policy and the absence of an agreed general relaxation

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to seek relief

The Tribunal treated prescription of an age limit and the extent of any relaxation as policy matters within the executive or legislative sphere; courts and tribunals may not direct a change in policy absent illegality or transgression of statutory or constitutional limits

It relied on Union of India v. Shivbachan Rai, (2001) 9 SCC 356, on the Government’s authority to prescribe age limits and relaxations; N.S. Siva Kumar v. Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (2020) 2 CTC 241, on the inability to create an additional age relaxation merely because recruitment was delayed; Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of A.P., (1990) 2 SCC 707, and Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364, on judicial restraint in executive policy; and Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85, together with Ankita Thakur v. H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023, on relaxation requiring authority under the rules and/or advertisement and compliance with applicable recruitment conditions

The applicant exceeded the notified age limit even after the five-year Scheduled Caste relaxation, and sought a further two years based on the COVID-era Government Order

The respondents’ proposed one-time relaxation for Group-B posts had not received the necessary approval, and the Tribunal considered that granting relief only to the applicant would be inequitable given the other over-aged candidates who had applied

Applying the cited principles, the Tribunal held that age relaxation was a policy matter and that it could not direct the Government to adopt a further relaxation or single out the applicant for one

It dismissed the application and any pending miscellaneous applications, with no order as to costs