Courts cannot compel ad hoc age relaxation where recruitment rules provide none.

The applicant, a person with benchmark disability of 75%, sought to participate in recruitment for Assistant (Group B, Non-Gazetted) posts notified by the Government of Puducherry on 22 August 2024. The notification prescribed an upper age limit of 30 years as of 24 April 2024, with specified disability-related and category-based relaxations.

The applicant, who was over-age, contended that additional age relaxation was warranted because the recruitment followed a 12-year gap and a one-time relaxation had previously been granted for Group C posts. After she was unable to apply online, she filed this application seeking acceptance of an offline application, age relaxation, and permission to participate in the selection process.

The respondents opposed further relaxation, stating that the competent authorities had not approved a proposed two-year relaxation for Group B posts and that the applicant could not be granted individual relief.

1. Whether the Tribunal could direct the respondents to grant the applicant further age relaxation and permit her to participate in the recruitment despite the prescribed upper age limit.

2. Whether the applicant could receive individual age-relaxation relief when no such relaxation was provided under the applicable recruitment terms.

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to seek relief.

The Tribunal applied the principle that prescribing an age limit and determining the extent of permissible relaxation are matters of executive or legislative policy, subject to legal and constitutional limits (Union of India v. Shivbachan Rai, (2001) 9 SCC 356; Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of A.P., (1990) 2 SCC 707; Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 364).

It also relied on the rule that recruitment conditions cannot be relaxed unless the power to do so is reserved in the relevant rules or advertisement, and that relaxation must comply with the governing recruitment terms (Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85; Ankita Thakur v. H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023).

The Tribunal further cited N.S. Siva Kumar v. Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (2020) 2 CTC 241, for the proposition that a delay in holding an examination, absent mala fides, does not itself justify additional age relaxation.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was over the prescribed age limit and treated the requested additional relaxation as a change to recruitment policy. It held that the respondents’ decision not to grant the proposed Group B relaxation could not be displaced by a direction from the Tribunal, and that delay in recruitment did not independently entitle the applicant to further relaxation.

Granting relief only to the applicant would also be inconsistent with the recruitment terms and could prejudice other similarly situated candidates who had not applied because they considered themselves age-barred.

Applying the cited authorities, the Tribunal found no basis to direct acceptance of the offline application with additional age relaxation or to otherwise permit the applicant to participate.

It dismissed the Original Application and any pending miscellaneous applications, with no order as to costs.