Age-relaxation claim dismissed, with liberty to separately challenge result-related grievances in accordance with law.

The applicants, candidates for the post of TGT (Special Education Teacher), challenged the non-grant of a proposed ten-year upper-age-limit relaxation to male candidates under Post Code 33/23, advertised by the Directorate of Education through Advertisement No. 02/2023 dated 31 July 2023.

They sought declarations that they were entitled to the relaxation and that its denial was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

During the proceedings, the respondents produced the examination result in a sealed cover.

Applicant No. 6 was found to have been absent from the examination.

Applicants Nos. 1 and 5 had secured marks above the cut-off, but their candidature had been considered under the OBC category; the result separately reflected “OBC (OS)” and “OBC” categories.

The remaining applicants had not secured marks within the cut-off range.

Whether the applicants were entitled to a ten-year relaxation in the upper age limit for the post of TGT (Special Education Teacher) under Post Code 33/23.

Whether the respondents’ failure to grant such age relaxation to male candidates was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

Whether any relief could be granted on the basis of the applicants’ examination performance and category-wise result.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited or applied in the order.

The Tribunal applied the procedural and remedial principle that relief must be granted on the basis of the pleaded claim and the material examination record before the court.

An absent candidate cannot obtain consideration based on the examination result, while a candidate who has not secured marks within the applicable cut-off range cannot claim appointment-related relief in the proceedings.

Where a grievance concerning categorisation or the result was distinct from the relief sought in the original application, the affected candidates could pursue that grievance separately in accordance with law.

The Tribunal examined the sealed-cover result to determine whether the applicants could obtain relief in the pending challenge to the age-relaxation policy.

Applicant No. 6 was absent from the examination and therefore had no basis for consideration.

Applicants Nos. 2–4 had not achieved marks within the cut-off range, so the claimed relief could not assist them.

As to Applicants Nos. 1 and 5, although they had secured marks above the cut-off, their contention concerned consideration under the OBC category and the apparent distinction between “OBC (OS)” and “OBC.”

The Tribunal held that this issue did not fall within the scope of the reliefs sought in the OA.

It consequently declined relief while preserving their liberty to challenge the result or categorisation separately in accordance with law.

Applicant No. 6’s case was not considered because he was absent from the examination, and Applicants Nos. 2–4 were denied relief because they had not reached the cut-off range.

Applicants Nos. 1 and 5 were granted liberty to raise, separately and in accordance with law, their grievance concerning the OBC/OBC (OS) categorisation and the examination result.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.