Competent authority must consider one-time age relaxation for overage contractual candidates qualifying on merit.

The 14 applicants were contractual teachers serving under the respondents for approximately 14–20 years. They challenged the refusal to grant them age relaxation beyond the five-year limit prescribed for contractual employees, which allegedly rendered them over-aged for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery), Post Code 817/23, pursuant to Advertisement No. 08/2023.

By an interim order dated 2 February 2024, the Tribunal permitted the applicants to participate provisionally in the selection process without creating any equity or indefeasible right in their favour; they accordingly participated.

The respondents produced their results in a sealed cover. Only Applicant Nos. 1, 5, 7 and 14—Manju Bala, Usha, Raj Bala Karir and Geeta Yadav—secured marks above the prescribed cut-off.

The respondents relied on the Tribunal’s decision in O.A. No. 669/2024, in which a similarly placed candidate who had participated provisionally and qualified on merit was directed to be considered by the competent authority for one-time age relaxation.

Whether the applicants were entitled to age relaxation beyond the prescribed five-year limit for contractual employees so as to participate in the recruitment process for Assistant Teacher (Nursery), Post Code 817/23

Whether the cases of applicants who participated pursuant to the interim order and qualified above the cut-off deserved consideration by the competent authority for one-time age relaxation

Whether any relief could be granted to applicants who did not secure marks above the prescribed cut-off

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal over service-related grievances.

The Tribunal applied the principle that participation pursuant to an interim order does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, but the peculiar circumstances of a candidate’s provisional participation and subsequent qualification on merit may justify consideration by the competent authority for a one-time age relaxation.

The Tribunal relied upon its decision in O.A. No. 669/2024, which directed the competent authority to adopt a holistic view of such a candidate’s claim for age relaxation, without itself determining the entitlement on merits.

The appointment, if ultimately considered, remained subject to fulfilment of all other eligibility conditions and the applicable Recruitment Rules.

The Tribunal found the controversy substantially analogous to that in O.A. No. 669/2024. The four successful applicants had served the respondents for a long period, had been permitted to participate under the interim order, and had thereafter qualified on merit.

These circumstances placed them on a footing similar to the candidate in O.A. No. 669/2024 and warranted administrative consideration of their cases for one-time age relaxation.

However, the Tribunal did not declare that the applicants were legally entitled to the claimed relaxation or invalidate the five-year limitation. It expressly left the merits of the relaxation claim to the competent authority, which was required to consider the matter independently and holistically.

Since the remaining applicants had not crossed the prescribed cut-off, their candidature could not result in any direction for appointment or further consideration.

If age relaxation was granted, the respondents were directed to consider their candidature for appointment, subject to compliance with all other eligibility conditions and the applicable Recruitment Rules.

No relief was granted to the remaining applicants who had not secured marks above the cut-off.

There was no order as to costs.