Contractual MCD teachers are entitled to age relaxation for allied teaching posts based on continuous service.

The applicants were contractual Nursery Teachers engaged by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery) (Female), Post Code 817/23, advertised by DSSSB through Advertisement No. 08/2023 dated 22.12.2023.

They had served continuously for approximately 18 to 21 years: Pinki Maurya since 13.10.2005, and Saroj Bala, Anju Bala and Savita Kumari Mann since September 2003.

The applicable upper age limit was 30 years, with contractual employees of the same department entitled to one-time relaxation equivalent to the period of contractual service, subject to a maximum of five years and the condition of at least 120 working days in the relevant year under the Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019.

The applicants contended that they had become over-age because the respondents had not conducted regular recruitment for the post for nearly thirteen years after the previous recruitment in 2010.

They had appeared in and qualified the written examination conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 08/2023, but their candidature was affected by the age bar.

The Tribunal had earlier permitted provisional participation in the selection process, subject to the final outcome of the O.A.

The applicants challenged the advertisement, the Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019 and the Recruitment Rules dated 15.06.2011, seeking age relaxation corresponding to their contractual service and consideration for appointment.

DSSSB argued that it had merely acted on MCD’s requisition and lacked power to grant relaxation beyond the Recruitment Rules or advertisement.

MCD maintained that the advertisement already granted the permissible relaxation of up to five years.

Whether contractual Nursery Teachers engaged by MCD could be treated as “employees of MCD” or contractual employees of the same department for purposes of age relaxation?

Whether the applicants were entitled to age relaxation by taking into account their continuous contractual service, notwithstanding the five-year limitation stated in the advertisement and the Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019?

Whether the respondents’ prolonged failure to conduct regular recruitment justified a further or purposive relaxation of the upper-age limit?

Whether the applicants who had qualified above the prescribed cut-off marks were entitled to consideration for appointment despite having crossed the ordinary upper-age limit?

The Tribunal applied the Recruitment Rules for Assistant Teacher (Nursery), notified on 15.06.2011, read with the age-relaxation clause in Advertisement No. 08/2023 and the Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019, which provided one-time relaxation for contractual employees equivalent to the actual period of contractual service, subject to the prescribed conditions and maximum limit.

It relied on Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup & Ors., (2008) 11 SCC 10, holding that contractual employees of MCD fall within the expression “employees of MCD” and cannot be excluded merely because their engagement is contractual.

It also relied on Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Preeti Rathi, W.P.(C) No. 1641/2011, concerning age relaxation for contractual MCD teachers, and Shelja Dhama v. DSSSB, O.A. No. 1039/2021, for the principle that an advertisement must conform to notified Recruitment Rules and that an unnotified proposed amendment cannot curtail an existing statutory benefit.

The Tribunal further invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, purposive interpretation, and the principle that “matters relating to employment” must be construed broadly, as explained in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Ranga Chari, (1962) 2 SCR 586.

It also considered the principle against unjustified prolonged contractual employment discussed in Bhola Nath Rajak v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ narrow distinction between regular MCD employees and contractual MCD teachers.

It held that the Recruitment Rules adopted by MCD were substantially the same as those applicable to the Directorate of Education and that the expression “employees of MCD” was not confined to permanent employees.

The applicants had rendered long and continuous service in teaching posts, and the Tribunal found that Primary Teacher and Assistant Teacher (Nursery) were posts in the same line or allied cadres, with the prior teaching experience being directly useful for the advertised duties.

The Tribunal also treated the respondents’ failure to conduct recruitment for nearly thirteen years as a relevant circumstance.

The applicants had not caused the delay and had continued performing substantially similar duties during the period in which they became over-age.

Applying a harmonious and purposive interpretation of “continuous service” and “same department,” the Tribunal held that an artificial distinction between departments or between contractual and regular service would defeat the objective of equal opportunity in public employment.

Since four applicants had secured marks above the prescribed cut-off in the 2023 examination, their merit was established independently of their unsuccessful participation in the earlier 2010 recruitment.

The remaining applicants, however, had not crossed the cut-off and therefore could not claim appointment merely on the basis of contractual service.

The respondents were directed to extend to them the benefit of age relaxation and consider their candidature for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Nursery) (Female), Post Code 817/23, in accordance with merit and subject to fulfilment of all other recruitment conditions.

Their appointment was directed to be treated as a fresh appointment, to be adjusted against future vacancies or, if administratively necessary, against supernumerary posts, within two months of receipt of the certified order.

The claims of the remaining applicants—Sarabjeet, Kiran, Ila Soni, Neelam and Arti Devi—were dismissed because they had not secured marks above the cut-off.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.