Courts cannot compel age relaxation absent authority in the recruitment rules or advertisement.

The applicant challenged the age limit for recruitment to 256 Assistant (Group B, Non-Gazetted) posts notified by the Government of Puducherry on 22 August 2024.

The maximum age was 30 years as of 24 April 2024; the applicant was over-age.

He argued that recruitment had not taken place regularly for about 12 years and sought age relaxation, referring to a two-year one-time relaxation earlier granted for Group C posts.

After being unable to submit an online application, he sought permission to submit an offline application and participate in the selection process.

The respondents opposed relaxation, stating that a proposal for two years’ relaxation for Group B posts had not been agreed to by the Ministry of Home Affairs/Department of Personnel and Training.

They also submitted that similar applications had been dismissed.

The respondents had not filed a reply statement.

Whether the Tribunal could direct the respondents to grant the applicant age relaxation and accept his offline application for the Assistant recruitment.

Whether the applicant could be granted individual relief permitting him to participate in the selection process despite the prescribed age limit and the absence of an approved relaxation.

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

The Tribunal relied on the principle that prescribing an age limit and determining the extent of any relaxation are matters of executive or legislative policy: Union of India v. Shivbachan Rai, (2001) 9 SCC 356.

It also relied on N.S. Siva Kumar v. Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (2020) 2 CTC 241, for the proposition that delay in holding an examination, without mala fides, does not itself justify further age relaxation.

Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of A.P., (1990) 2 SCC 707, and Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 364, establish that courts and tribunals may review executive action for legality but must not direct or advise the executive on matters of policy within its lawful domain.

The Tribunal further applied Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85, and Ankita Thakur v. H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023, for the rule that relaxation must be authorised by the applicable rules or advertisement and cannot be introduced without the required reservation and publicity.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was over-age and treated the requested relaxation as a matter of recruitment policy.

It noted that the proposed two-year relaxation for Group B posts had not been approved and held that the applicant could not be singled out for relief contrary to the prescribed norms.

The asserted delay in recruitment did not, by itself, empower the Tribunal to create an additional relaxation, particularly where doing so could prejudice other candidates who may not have applied because they considered themselves age-barred.

The Tribunal therefore found no legal basis to direct acceptance of the offline application or participation in the selection process.

Finding no merit in the Original Application, it dismissed the application and any pending miscellaneous applications, with no order as to costs.