Age relaxation is an executive prerogative; judicial interference is barred for candidates who fail to remain vigilant.

The applicants filed an Original Application (OA) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging Advertisement Vacancy Notice No. 01/2026 dated 20.02.2026

They sought to quash the upper age limit of 30 years for the post of Grade-II (GNCTDSS)/Assistant Section Officer (Post Code 804/26) and requested a one-time age relaxation of three years, citing delays in the recruitment cycle and their socio-economic backgrounds

The applicants contended they hailed from remote areas and low-economic strata; however, the memo of parties indicated residences within New Delhi

The applicants approached the Tribunal and submitted an email representation only after the prescribed application deadline had expired

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to judicial intervention for the grant of one-time age relaxation based on recruitment delays and socio-economic status

2. Whether the Tribunal can grant relief to candidates who fail to assert their rights within the sacrosanct timelines prescribed in a recruitment advertisement

The Tribunal relied on the principle that recruitment advertisement terms and closing dates are sacrosanct and must be strictly adhered to

It affirmed that the grant of age relaxation is an executive function with limited scope for judicial review

The court applied the doctrine of Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights)

Furthermore, it followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Delhi Police & Anr. vs. Uttam Kumar (2026 INSC 314), which established that "grace, charity or compassion" have no place in public employment matters if a fair level playing field is to be maintained

The Tribunal found the applicants' justifications for delay and relaxation to be unsubstantiated.

It noted the contradiction between the claim of residing in "remote areas" and the New Delhi addresses provided in the memo of parties

The Tribunal reasoned that since the application deadline had already elapsed, the request for parity with other cases could not be entertained

It observed that the applicants failed to demonstrate due diligence, as their only communication was an email dated 07.04.2026, which the Tribunal characterized as an "afterthought" intended to secure participation belatedly

Applying the Uttam Kumar precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that socio-economic status cannot be a decisive factor for tilting the scales of justice in matters of public employment where procedural discipline is required

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, holding that no case for relief was made out

While M.A. No. 1712/2026 (Joining Together) was allowed, the main OA was dismissed with no order as to costs