Age relaxation for meritorious sportspersons applies to all non-UPSC Group B posts despite reclassification or withdrawal by corrigendum.

The applicants, meritorious sportspersons (MSPs), applied for various Group 'B' teaching and physical education posts advertised by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) between 2020 and 2022.

Initially, DSSSB issued a Corrigendum dated 13.02.2020 extending upper age relaxation to MSPs for Group 'B' posts.

However, following objections from the DoPT and MHA, the respondents issued a Notice dated 17.06.2021 withdrawing the Corrigendum, claiming that age relaxation was only permissible for Group 'C' and 'D' posts.

The applicants, who had qualified for the exams and secured marks above the cut-off, were subsequently issued rejection notices dated 30.06.2022 on the grounds of being "over-aged".

1. Whether meritorious sportspersons are entitled to upper age relaxation for recruitment to Group ‘B’ posts (Non-Gazetted/Non-Ministerial) filled through DSSSB.

2. Whether the reclassification of posts from Group ‘C’ to Group ‘B’ pursuant to the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) automatically withdraws established policy benefits like age relaxation for special categories.

The Court primarily applied Office Memorandum (OM) dated 12.11.1987, which extended age relaxation for MSPs to "all" groups of Civil posts/services filled otherwise than through UPSC competitive exams.

It relied on the Saving Clause (Rule 6) of the Directorate of Education Recruitment Rules, 2011, which protects concessions provided to special categories via Central Government orders.

The Tribunal followed the precedent in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Mukesh Vats (W.P.(C) 3038/2012), which clarified that the 1987 OM applies to all groups of civil posts under GNCTD.

It further applied the principle of "purposive interpretation," ensuring that administrative reclassifications do not defeat the legislative intent behind beneficial policies like the National Sports Policy.

The Tribunal reasoned that the OM dated 12.11.1987 used the universal quantifier "all" to describe the groups of civil posts eligible for age relaxation, with the only specific exclusion being posts filled via the UPSC.

Since DSSSB, and not UPSC, conducts recruitment for the Group 'B' non-gazetted posts in question, the exclusion does not apply.

The court observed that the transition of these posts from Group 'C' to Group 'B' was a result of Pay Commission recommendations (6th CPC) for fiscal and administrative rationalization and did not constitute a change in the nature of the posts that would justify "hyper-classification" to deny benefits.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' reliance on consolidated OMs from 2013 and 2022, holding they were merely "excerpts" for convenience and did not rescind the substantive rights granted by the 1987 OM.

Withdrawing the corrigendum mid-process was deemed arbitrary and a violation of Article 14.

It quashed the rejection notices for applicants in OA Nos. 1880/2022, 1885/2022, 1933/2022, 1934/2022, 2051/2022, and 3330/2022 and directed the respondents to reassess eligibility and offer appointments with notional seniority if qualified.

The exercise for eligible candidates must be completed within two months; however, OAs related to future advertisements were dismissed as premature.