CAT Rejects Puducherry School MTS’s PET Age-Relaxation Claim, Finding No MSP Quota or Relevant-Service Basis

The applicant, a regular Multi-Tasking Staff member at a government school, held a B.P.Ed. degree, a B.Com. degree and a Diploma in Physical Education.

She challenged the recruitment notification for 38 Physical Education Teacher (PET) posts, which prescribed an upper age limit of 30 years as of 27 February 2026.

She claimed age relaxation as a Meritorious Sports Person (MSP), relying on Form-II and Form-III certificates, and as an in-service employee.

She also argued that the long gap since the previous recruitment disadvantaged eligible candidates.

The respondents maintained that the PET Recruitment Rules provided no MSP reservation and that the applicant did not meet the conditions for in-service relaxation.

The applicant sought consideration for appointment; the Tribunal dismissed the application.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the procedural basis for the application; the substantive eligibility question was governed by the PET Recruitment Rules notified by G.O. Ms. No. 100 dated 24 August 2010 and the applicable DoPT guidelines.

The Tribunal noted that the Rules classified PET as a Group ‘B’ Non-Gazetted post and did not provide MSP reservation for direct recruitment.

DoPT O.M. dated 27 March 2012 permits five years’ age relaxation for qualifying Group ‘B’ government servants only where they are in the same line or allied cadres and their existing service is relevant to the duties of the post sought.

The Tribunal also applied the principles in Union of India v. Pushpa Rani, (2008) 9 SCC 242, that courts ordinarily do not determine recruitment methodology or selection criteria; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85, that relaxation must be authorised by the applicable rules and/or advertisement; and Ankita Thakur v. H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023, concerning relaxation of eligibility criteria without reserved power or proper notice.

The Tribunal found that the notification’s age limit and listed relaxations conformed to the Recruitment Rules and applicable guidelines.

Because the Rules made no provision for MSP reservation for direct recruitment to PET posts, the applicant’s sports certificates did not establish entitlement to MSP-based relaxation.

Her MTS position was not shown to be in the same or an allied cadre, nor was her service shown to be relevant to PET duties; she therefore failed to satisfy the conditions for in-service relaxation.

The Tribunal further held that the prescribed age limit and permissible relaxations were matters primarily for the competent authority, and that the applicant had no right to additional relaxation absent a breach of the governing rules or guidelines.

It dismissed the Original Application, with no order as to costs.