Age relaxation is an executive policy matter beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

The applicant applied for the post of Guest Bal Sevika on a contract basis in Puducherry and Karaikal, following a vacancy notification dated 30.10.2018 (modified on 05.07.2019)

The applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category and is a Meritorious Sports Person (MSP).

Having been recommended by the Employment Exchange, she sought an age relaxation of 15 years

However, the respondent authorities granted only 10 years of relaxation and rejected her candidacy via an order dated 16.06.2020, as she was 42 years, 2 months, and 17 days old on the reckoning date (DOB: 09.09.1976)

This matter constitutes the fourth round of litigation for the same relief, following previous dismissals by the Tribunal and directions from the Hon’ble Madras High Court to the Lieutenant-Governor of Puducherry to decide the eligibility

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a cumulative age relaxation of 15 years (combining SC, MSP, and Employment Exchange categories) beyond the 10 years already granted

2. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant age relaxation in matters of executive policy

DoPT OM dated 07.03.1974, which provides a 5-year age concession for SC candidates

OM dated 12.11.1987, which allows a 5-year relaxation for MSP candidates (extendable to 10 years if the MSP candidate belongs to SC/ST)

G.O.Ms.No.98/83-Lab dated 24.08.1983, which governs age relaxation for candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, capping such relaxation for overaged candidates at 35 years of age

The Tribunal analyzed the calculation of age relaxation and determined that as an SC candidate and an MSP, the applicant was entitled to a maximum of 10 years (5 years for SC plus 5 years for MSP), bringing the permissible age limit to 40 years

The applicant’s contention that she was entitled to an additional 5 years (totaling 15 years) based on Employment Exchange sponsorship was rejected because G.O.Ms.No.98/83-Lab specifically limits such concessions to candidates up to the age of 35

Since the applicant was already 42 years old at the time of the reckoning date, she did not qualify for the Employment Exchange relaxation

The Tribunal further noted that the applicant had previously failed to secure similar relief in OA 1603/2018 and OA 1462/2019, and no new facts were presented

The Tribunal emphasized that age relaxation is a policy matter within the executive domain, and the judiciary cannot unilaterally extend such limits

The Tribunal further ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with executive policy regarding age relaxation

Consequently, the Original Application (OA) was dismissed as devoid of merit with no order as to costs