Age relaxation under the DoE notification cannot override separate MCD recruitment rules absent adoption.

The petitioner, an unreserved-category candidate born on 27 April 1982 and working as a Guest Teacher with the Directorate of Education (DoE), sought appointment as Teacher (Primary) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

She claimed ten years’ age relaxation under a 1 November 1980 notification issued by the DoE under Rule 43 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

The MCD Recruitment Rules prescribed an upper age limit of 30 years, and Advertisement No. 01/18 dated 26 June 2018 did not specify that the DoE notification’s relaxation applied to the MCD recruitment.

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed her application, holding that the notification did not govern recruitment under the MCD’s separate Recruitment Rules.

Whether the 1 November 1980 notification issued under Rule 43 of the DSE Rules entitled the petitioner to ten years’ age relaxation in recruitment to an MCD post governed by separate Recruitment Rules.

Whether the petitioner’s participation in the selection process, examination score, and comparison with the last selected candidate could establish a right to appointment despite her failure to meet the prescribed age limit.

Whether denying the claimed relaxation violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Rule 43 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 was the source of the 1980 notification granting women candidates ten years’ age relaxation in specified Delhi-school recruitments; however, the MCD post was governed by separate Recruitment Rules prescribing a maximum age of 30 years.

The Court treated the MCD as an autonomous local body with its own service framework under the constitutional scheme for local self-government.

Relying on DSSSB v. Seema Kapoor, the Court applied the principle that an age concession cannot be extended beyond the class or recruitment specified in the provision granting it, and that a promotional relationship does not by itself make separate services one service for age-relaxation purposes.

Participation under an interim order does not create substantive eligibility or a right to appointment.

The Court held that the issue was not simply whether the 1980 notification remained in force when the advertisement was issued, but whether it applied to recruitment under the MCD’s separate Recruitment Rules.

The petitioner identified no provision in the MCD Rules or Advertisement No. 01/18 adopting that notification’s ten-year relaxation; the advertisement instead prescribed an age limit of 30 years and specified the applicable relaxations.

Her employment as a DoE Guest Teacher and the asserted feeder relationship between MCD and DoE posts did not merge the two services or alter the eligibility rules for the MCD post.

Her interim participation and examination marks could not cure the age ineligibility, and the Court found no relevant comparator establishing discrimination under Articles 14 or 16.

The writ petition and pending applications were dismissed.