Central age-relaxation rules do not apply to GNCTD recruitment absent adoption.

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board advertised the post of Physical Education Teacher under Advertisement No. 02/14, prescribing a maximum age of 30 years and specifying certain age relaxations, but not a relaxation for Kashmiri migrants.

Bhawna Khanna applied in the unreserved category, identifying herself as a Kashmiri migrant, and appeared in the examination. After she was shortlisted and uploaded her e-dossier, the Board rejected her candidature on 7 November 2017 as overage; she had scored 88.25 marks.

She claimed entitlement to five years’ age relaxation under the Residents of State of Jammu & Kashmir (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit for Recruitment to Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1997, and challenged the rejection before the Tribunal.

Whether the applicant was entitled to age relaxation as a Kashmiri migrant under the 1997 Rules for recruitment to the advertised GNCTD post.

Whether the Board’s rejection of her candidature as overage should be set aside, despite the advertisement’s stated age-relaxation conditions and the applicant’s participation in the recruitment process.

The applicant relied on the Residents of State of Jammu & Kashmir (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit for Recruitment to Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1997, which she submitted provided eligible Kashmiri migrants with up to five years’ age relaxation; the Tribunal found no notification showing that GNCTD had adopted those Rules.

The Tribunal also applied the principle of estoppel, holding that a candidate who accepts the advertised recruitment conditions and participates in the process cannot, after completion of the process, seek to challenge those conditions.

The advertisement prescribed a 30-year age limit and specified relaxations for SC/ST, OBC, and departmental candidates/Government servants, but not Kashmiri migrants.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not produced any notification establishing that GNCTD had adopted the 1997 Rules or generally applied Central Government age-relaxation notifications to its recruitment.

It therefore rejected the claim that those Rules entitled her to relaxation for this post.

Further, the applicant had not challenged the advertisement’s age conditions when issued; she applied and participated in the examination and recruitment process before seeking relaxation after her candidature was rejected.

The Tribunal held that her claim was barred by estoppel and that the Board had applied the conditions stated in the advertisement.

It held that no applicable adoption of the 1997 Rules had been established and that the applicant could not seek age relaxation after accepting the recruitment conditions and participating in the process.

The OA was dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.