Age relaxation lies with the competent authority; provisional participation cannot be ordered without a prima facie case.

The applicants, departmental teachers serving under the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, challenged the Recruitment Rules for Vice-Principal and the consequential UPSC Special Advertisement No. 51/2026 concerning Vacancy No. 26075101725.

They alleged, inter alia, that the Recruitment Rules and advertisement unlawfully restricted the requisite teaching experience to Vice-Principal/PGT/TGT posts, thereby excluding experience gained as a Primary Teacher/Assistant Teacher.

During hearing, however, the applicants principally sought relaxation of the prescribed upper age limit of 35 years so that they could participate in the direct-recruitment process.

The applicants relied on earlier proceedings, including O.A. No. 1631/2022/O.A. No. 1633/2022, and contended that the post had historically been promotional but, following the 2018 amendment to the Recruitment Rules, was divided between promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 50:50.

The last date for submission of applications was 14 August 2026 and the examination was scheduled for 1 November 2026.

The applicants also relied on Clause 5 of the Recruitment Rules, which empowered the Government, for recorded reasons and in consultation with the UPSC, to relax any provision of the Rules for a class or category of persons.

The respondents opposed provisional participation, submitting that the applicants exceeded the prescribed age limit and that the validity of the age prescription could not be interfered with at that stage.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to a direction permitting them to participate provisionally in the UPSC selection process despite exceeding the prescribed upper age limit of 35 years?

2. Whether the question of granting one-time age relaxation was required to be considered by the competent authority under Clause 5 of the Recruitment Rules?

3. Whether the Tribunal ought, at the interlocutory stage, to interfere with or adjudicate upon the applicants’ challenge to the Recruitment Rules and advertisement concerning eligibility and teaching experience?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that framing or amending recruitment rules falls primarily within the domain of the Executive and Legislature, and that courts should not interfere with a prescribed age limit unless it is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory.

Clause 5 of the applicable Recruitment Rules empowered the Government, by a reasoned order and in consultation with the UPSC, to relax any provision of the Rules for a class or category of persons.

For interim relief, the Tribunal applied the requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC 396, concerning protection of rights pending final adjudication.

Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388, concerning preservation of the subject matter so that final relief is not rendered nugatory.

Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, (2017) 13 SCC 115 and Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, (2000) 5 SCC 57, on limited interference with interlocutory orders.

Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, (1984) 1 SCC 307, cautioning against provisional admission or participation unless the applicant has a virtually certain case or the error is manifest.

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1, on the undesirability of deciding difficult questions of law or fact at the interlocutory stage.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ request for provisional participation substantially overlapped with their substantive relief.

Granting such participation would effectively provide the principal relief before examining the validity of the Recruitment Rules, the applicants’ eligibility, and the pending representations.

Although Clause 5 vested the Government with power to grant age relaxation, that power belonged initially to the competent authority, not the Tribunal.

The earlier decision had already found the 35-year age limit not unreasonable or discriminatory, and the applicants had not established a prima facie case warranting interim interference.

The Tribunal further observed that the respondents’ proposal granting one-time age relaxation in a different TGT recruitment process could be a relevant consideration but could not automatically govern the present recruitment.

Since the competent authority retained discretion to grant relaxation and, if relaxation were granted, to consider extending the application deadline, the requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury were not satisfied in favour of provisional participation.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from deciding the merits of the challenge to the Rules or the applicants’ claim concerning teaching experience.

Instead, the competent authority was directed to consider the applicants’ request for age relaxation in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and to take a holistic decision within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the order, after considering the Rules, the power of relaxation, earlier proceedings, the proposal dated 9 June 2026, and the circumstances of the case.

The authority was also directed to consider, if relaxation were granted, the consequential issue of extending the application deadline.

The O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage without expressing any opinion on the merits, and pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.

The Tribunal allowed M.A. No. 3896/2026 and permitted the applicants to pursue the O.A. jointly.