Contractual service does not entitle a wait-listed candidate to age relaxation or appointment.

The applicant, an Assistant Professor in Law engaged on a contractual basis at Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Puducherry, possessed an LL.B., LL.M., NET qualification and Ph.D., and had served as an Assistant Professor in Law from 2008 onwards.

Pursuant to the UPSC notification dated 8 August 2015 inviting applications for Assistant Professor in Law, prescribing an upper age limit of 38 years, she sought age relaxation from the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry, as she was 38 years and 29 days old on the relevant date.

The Tribunal initially permitted her to participate provisionally in the selection process. She appeared for interview, but was not included in the select list and was placed in the reserve list.

The Government of Puducherry thereafter rejected her request by order dated 24 November 2017, holding, inter alia, that age relaxation was available to Government employees and not contractual employees, and that the applicable instructions did not support the requested relaxation.

However, the UPSC subsequently clarified that the reserve panel had expired on 27 September 2018 and could not be operated indefinitely.

Whether the applicant, being a contractual employee who had crossed the prescribed upper age limit, was entitled to age relaxation under the applicable Recruitment Rules and governmental instructions.

Whether the applicant’s long contractual service, qualifications, experience, and prior consideration by the competent authority created an enforceable right to age relaxation or appointment.

Whether inclusion in the reserve/waiting list entitled the applicant to appointment, or justified opening of the sealed cover containing her result.

The Tribunal applied the Recruitment Rules governing the post of Assistant Professor in Law, including Clause 5 concerning relaxation of age and the requirement of consultation with the UPSC, while treating the Lieutenant Governor as the competent authority to take the final decision on relaxation.

It relied on the principle that public employment is governed by statutory rules and that age relaxation cannot be granted unless authorised by the applicable rules or instructions, as recognised by the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 6371 of 2023.

The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision concerning ECIL, which held that persons engaged through outsourcing or contractual arrangements were not automatically entitled to age relaxation where the governing notification did not cover them.

Further, relying on Union of India v. Subit Kumar Das, reported as 2025 INSC 1235, and Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer v. Ati Jain, reported as 2026 INSC 64, the Tribunal held that a wait-listed or reserve-list candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment; such a candidate can claim appointment only in accordance with the governing rules and within the life of the reserve panel.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had exceeded the prescribed upper age limit and was not covered by any applicable provision granting age relaxation to contractual employees.

Although the earlier order directed the competent authority to consider her request, it did not confer a right to relaxation or appointment; the final decision remained with the competent authority.

Her long service, qualifications, satisfactory record, and prior NOC or recommendation could not override the governing Recruitment Rules or create an entitlement contrary to them.

The Tribunal further found that the applicant had merely been placed in the reserve list and had not been recommended by the UPSC for appointment.

Reserve-list inclusion did not confer a vested right to appointment, particularly after the reserve panel had expired and the recruitment process had concluded.

Since she failed to satisfy the eligibility condition relating to age relaxation, there was no basis either to appoint her or to open the sealed cover containing her result.

It held that she was not entitled to age relaxation merely because she was a contractual employee with long experience, and that her placement in the reserve list did not create an enforceable right to appointment.

As she did not fulfil the prescribed eligibility condition and the reserve panel had ceased to operate, the Tribunal declined to open the sealed cover and found no ground to interfere with the rejection order dated 24 November 2017.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.