Contractual employees qualify as internal candidates for age relaxation unless staff rules specifically exclude them.

The applicant was appointed as a Junior Engineer on a contract basis at the Centre for Electronic Design and Technology of India (CEDTI), later renamed the National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT), on September 1, 2008

In 2010, he applied for the post of Office Assistant Grade-III as an internal candidate and was granted age relaxation by the Deputy Director, with approval from the Director

Following his selection on July 1, 2010, his appointment was challenged by a third party in OA No. 86 of 2011 on the grounds that he was over-age and ineligible for relaxation

While the respondents initially defended the selection, they later conducted an internal inquiry which concluded that the age relaxation was "erroneous" because the applicant was a contract employee and not a regular employee with three years of continuous service

Consequently, the applicant’s services were terminated on January 30, 2015, without the issuance of a charge sheet or a formal departmental inquiry

The applicant challenged this termination as arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution

1. Whether a contractual employee falls within the definition of an "internal candidate" for the purpose of seeking age relaxation under the relevant Staff Rules

2. Whether the age relaxation granted to the applicant was issued by a competent authority and in accordance with the prescribed rules

3. Whether the termination of the applicant's service based on an internal inquiry report, without a formal disciplinary proceeding, was legally sustainable

The court primarily applied the DOEACC (NIELIT) Staff Rules, specifically Rules 1.3.Q and 1.3.R, which define regular and contract employees

The court relied on the legal principle established in Sh. Ravi Kumar v. DSSSB (CAT Principal Bench), which followed Dr. Jamuna Kurup v. MCD, holding that in the absence of a restrictive definition, the term "employee" encompasses permanent, temporary, regular, and contractual staff

The court also considered the respondents' reliance on the DOPT OM dated 19.05.1993 and District Collector Vizianagram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi regarding the termination of ineligible appointees

The Tribunal analyzed whether the applicant qualified as an "internal candidate" by examining the Staff Rules, noting that both regular and contract employees are covered under the broad definition of "employee"

Following the precedent in Sh. Ravi Kumar, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was indeed an internal candidate entitled to age relaxation

Regarding the validity of the relaxation, the court observed that it had been granted by the Deputy Director and approved by the Director

The court criticized the internal inquiry report, noting it was based on the "opinion" of the Inquiry Officer rather than specific rule violations and failed to identify who the competent authority was if the Director was deemed incompetent

the court found that since there was no evidence of the applicant using unfair means or undue influence to obtain the relaxation, the summary termination was improper

The Tribunal determined that the respondents' "somersault" in their legal stand—from defending the relaxation to terming it erroneous—lacked a solid foundation in the rules

It held that the applicant had established that the age relaxation was granted by a competent authority and that he qualified as an internal candidate

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant into service within four months

the court granted the respondents liberty to conduct a detailed inquiry under the relevant rules if they so chose

The applicant was denied back wages (monetary compensation) for the period he did not work