Age relaxation for a cancelled recruitment process requires documentary proof that the prior process was cancelled.

The petitioner had applied in 2018 for the post of Agriculture Assistant (TAFS Grade-III) and relied on a token issued for that recruitment to claim one-time age relaxation under the later JRBT recruitment notification.

He applied for the subsequent recruitment, participated in its selection process, and secured 121.75 marks, but JRBT did not recommend him because he exceeded the upper age limit.

JRBT maintained that the 2018 recruitment advertisement had not been cancelled and that the petitioner had produced no evidence of its cancellation; the cancellation and related age-relaxation arrangement concerned an earlier 2017 advertisement.

The petitioner sought a direction for recommendation and republication of the merit list

The Court applied the terms of the Government’s recruitment-policy memorandum dated 20 August 2018, which provided one-time upper-age relaxation for candidates who had participated in cancelled recruitment processes, subject to documentary proof of participation.

It also considered the later recruitment notification’s age-relaxation clause, which similarly required documentary evidence of participation in an earlier cancelled process.

The petitioner’s token evidenced participation in the recruitment advertised on 25 September 2018, but he did not establish that this particular recruitment process had been cancelled.

The material before the Court indicated that the earlier advertisement dated 3 January 2017 had been cancelled, while the 25 September 2018 advertisement referred to that earlier cancellation and was itself not shown to have been cancelled.

Because the applicable age-relaxation provisions required participation in a cancelled recruitment process and documentary evidence, the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions for relaxation.

His higher marks than some recommended candidates therefore did not overcome his disqualification for being over-age

It dismissed the writ petition, denied the requested directions for recommendation and republication of the merit list, and disposed of any pending applications