Applicant's age relaxation claim for contractual post remains open for future adjudication.

The applicant, Sh. Satender Kumar, was appointed as a Craft Instructor on a full-time contractual basis in the Department of Training and Technical Education (DTTE), Delhi, for the academic session 2011–2012, pursuant to Office Orders dated 20.01.2012.

His services were terminated before the completion of the academic session due to the transfer of a permanent employee to the said post.

The applicant subsequently made several representations seeking re-engagement, which were not disposed of by a reasoned order.

In July 2018, the respondent department issued an advertisement notice for the same post on a contractual basis, prescribing a maximum age limit of 30 years, which prevented the applicant from applying.

Aggrieved by this, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the advertisement or its age limit condition, and to direct the respondents to consider him for the post with age relaxation.

Clause three of the guidelines in the advertisement stated that the maximum age limit is 30 years, with age relaxation applicable in accordance with instructions/orders, and senior retired staff up to 65 years.

1. Whether the Advertisement Notice dated 21.07.2018 for the engagement of Instructor should be quashed to the extent of recruitment for the post of Painter (General) for the academic year 2018-2019.

2. Whether the condition of age limit prescribed in the Advertisement should be quashed, and the Respondent directed to restore the recruitment of candidates from 18-65 years on the post of Painter (General).

3. Whether the Respondents should be directed to consider the Applicant for the post of Craft Instructor Painter (General) by giving age relaxation.

4. Whether the applicant's application for the post of Craft Instructor Painter (General) should be accepted and considered.

5. Whether the applicant, who was working as a Craft Instructor on a contractual basis, can be afforded age relaxation.

The court considered the guidelines for candidates in the advertisement, specifically clause three, which stipulated a maximum age limit of 30 years for candidates, with age relaxation applicable in accordance with instructions/orders and allowing engagement of senior retired staff up to 65 years of age.

The issue of affording age relaxation to a contractual instructor within the context of these guidelines was noted for future consideration.

The Tribunal noted the primary issue was whether the applicant, a former contractual Craft Instructor, could be afforded age relaxation for the new advertisement.

The court highlighted that this specific issue could not be adjudicated at the present stage due to the "flux of time".

However, the court explicitly stated that the applicant retained the liberty to agitate his grievances in accordance with law should any further advertisement be issued.

Furthermore, the question of the applicant's entitlement to age relaxation was left open for future determination.

The Tribunal did not grant any specific orders regarding the quashing of the advertisement or the age limit, nor did it direct the respondents to consider the applicant for the post or provide age relaxation at this time.

The Tribunal held that specific orders regarding the applicant's request for age relaxation were not called for at this stage.

However, the applicant was granted liberty to agitate his grievances in accordance with law upon any future advertisement.

The question of whether the applicant is entitled to age relaxation remains open.

All pending M.As, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.