Candidates availing age relaxation under reserved categories cannot be considered for unreserved posts.

The petitioner, an OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) candidate who completed a 24-month Apprenticeship Training at Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), challenged the rejection of his candidature for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV.

The petitioner sought an additional one-year age relaxation based on his Boiler Apprenticeship Certificate, over and above the relaxation already granted for his OBC status.

He further sought to be considered against unreserved (General) posts occupied by Respondents No. 6 and 7.

Procedurally, a similar relief had been granted by the Court in a related matter, WP(C) No. 1373/2022.

1. Whether a reserved category candidate who has availed age relaxation can be considered for appointment against unreserved (General) category posts

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the additional one-year age relaxation for apprenticeship as per Clause G(10) of the advertisement

The Court applied the principle established by the Supreme Court in Deepa E.V. vs Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680, which holds that if an express bar exists in recruitment rules/advertisements, candidates from reserved categories (SC/ST/OBC) who avail age relaxation are prohibited from being considered against General Category vacancies.

It also referenced Clause E(2) and Clause J(13) of the subject advertisement, which stipulated that OBC (NCL) candidates availing concessions must be considered only against reserved posts.

Additionally, it applied Clause G(10) of the advertisement regarding apprenticeship age relaxation.

The Court observed that the petitioner admittedly required age relaxation both as an OBC candidate and as a former apprentice.

Following the precedent in Deepa E.V., the Court held that since the petitioner availed these relaxations, he was contractually and legally barred by the express terms of the advertisement from competing for unreserved posts.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the constitutional validity of these restrictive clauses.

However, regarding the technical calculation of the relaxation period, the Court found the petitioner’s situation identical to the precedent in WP(C) No. 1373/2022, wherein the Court determined that the respondent authorities had erroneously rejected candidates by failing to apply the cumulative relaxation of one additional year for apprenticeships.

the Court declared that the petitioner is entitled to the additional one-year age relaxation under Clause G(10).

The Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for the Skill/Proficiency/Physical Test (SPPT) for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV in accordance with his merit within the reserved category, to be concluded within three months.