Contractual service in government establishments qualifies for upper age limit exemptions in public recruitment.

The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued an advertisement on July 31, 2015, for 189 posts of Dental Surgeon, prescribing an upper age limit of 35 years for open category candidates.

The Respondents (Original Applicants) were Dental Surgeons serving on a contractual basis under the National Health Mission (NHM) for over ten years.

They participated in the selection process following various rounds of litigation regarding shortlisting criteria.

Although they were interviewed pursuant to High Court directions in a previous round of litigation, the MPSC ultimately rejected their candidatures on October 17, 2023, on the ground that they had exceeded the upper age limit as of the cut-off date (November 1, 2015).

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) directed MPSC to recommend their names by relaxing the age limit.

1. Whether contractual employees serving under a State-sponsored scheme (NHM) qualify as being "in the service of the Government" for the purpose of exemption from upper age limits under Rule 3(b)(i) of the Recruitment Rules, 1990.

2. Whether the MPSC was bound to recommend the Respondents' names in light of the previous High Court judgment dated March 20, 2023.

3. Whether the MAT had the jurisdiction to direct the MPSC to relax age limits under the proviso to Rule 3(b).

Rule 3(b)(i) of the Directorate of Health Service Recruitment Rules, 1990, which exempts those "already in the service of the Government" from the 35-year age limit.

Rule 2(b) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1979, which defines "Government servant" broadly to include any person appointed to a post in connection with the affairs of the State, regardless of the source of salary.

Government Resolution (GR) dated March 14, 2024, which formulated a policy to relax age limits for NHM contractual employees with over ten years of service.

Principles of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution were invoked to reject procedural technicalities.

The Court observed that Rule 3(b)(i) and Clause 4.2 of the advertisement do not mandate permanent or regular employment to qualify for the age exemption; they only require the candidate to be "in the service of the Government".

Since the Respondents served in Government hospitals and were appointed by Medical Superintendents, they were effectively in State service.

The Court held that the 2024 GR acted as a policy recognition that NHM workers are serving the State and are entitled to age relaxation.

Furthermore, a previous Division Bench of the High Court had already directed MPSC to consider these specific applicants against 67 unfilled vacancies, rendering the issue of their eligibility (including age) res judicata or at least settled between the parties.

While the Court agreed with MPSC that the power to relax age under the proviso to Rule 3(b) rests with the Government (not the Tribunal), it held that the Respondents met the age criteria as of right under the main rule, negating the need for a separate relaxation exercise.

The MPSC and State Government were directed to implement the recommendation and appointment of the Respondents to the post of Dental Surgeon within six weeks.