Candidates possess no vested right to claim age relaxation; its grant lies within the sole discretion of the employer.

The petitioners applied for the post of Health Worker (Female) in the Department of Medical and Health, Uttarakhand, following an advertisement for 391 vacancies in 2024.

Under Rule 10 of the applicable service rules, the maximum age limit is 42 years.

The petitioners had exceeded this limit as of the cutoff date (01.07.2023) and previously approached the Court, which directed the Secretary, Medical Health to consider their representations for age relaxation.

On 09.01.2026, the Secretary rejected these representations, leading to the current writ petitions.

The petitioners contended that the Secretary failed to consider the discretionary power of relaxation under Rule 3 of the Uttarakhand Public Services (Relaxation in Upper Age Limit for Recruitment) Rules, 2003.

1. Whether a candidate possesses a vested right to claim relaxation in the upper age limit prescribed by service rules.

2. Whether the State Government is legally obligated to grant age relaxation under Rule 3 of the 2003 Rules.

Rule 10 of the applicable service rules regarding age limits.

Rule 3 of the Uttarakhand Public Services (Relaxation in Upper Age Limit for Recruitment) Rules, 2003, which provides that the government "may" grant relaxation in maximum age notwithstanding contrary rules.

The precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shanti Devi (2022 INSC 1315), which established that eligibility criteria must be uniform, and no individual candidate can claim a vested right to age relaxation, as such relaxation lies within the sole discretion of the appointing authority.

The Court reasoned that while Rule 3 of the 2003 Rules enables the State Government to relax age conditions in appropriate cases, it does not create an enforceable right for a candidate who has crossed the maximum age.

The Court emphasized that age relaxation is a matter of employer discretion rather than a candidate's entitlement.

Relying on the Shanti Devi judgment, the Court observed that selective grant of age relaxation would cause prejudice to the selection process and render it arbitrary, as eligibility criteria must remain uniform to prevent unfairness.

Consequently, since the employer (the State) decided against granting such relaxation, the Secretary's rejection order was held to be legally sound and within the bounds of administrative discretion.

The Court found no reason to interfere with the Secretary’s rejection orders dated 09.01.2026. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.