Courts cannot direct additional age relaxation absent authority under recruitment rules or the advertisement.

The applicants challenged their exclusion from consideration for 58 Fireman vacancies notified on 4 November 2022.

The notification prescribed an upper age limit of 24 years as at 6 December 2022, which included a one-time two-year pandemic relaxation; it also provided category-based relaxation for specified reserved categories.

The applicants, belonging to MBC or OBC categories, said they were entitled to the pandemic and category relaxations and had sent applications by registered post after being unable to apply online.

They sought age relaxation and consideration for appointment

The Tribunal permitted them, on an interim basis, to participate in the examination, while making clear that participation would not confer a right to appointment.

The respondents did not file a reply despite the time granted, but opposed the application, contending that the notified age limit already incorporated the two-year relaxation and that further relaxation was unwarranted

Whether the applicants were entitled to further age relaxation beyond the age limit and relaxations specified in the recruitment notification

Whether the Tribunal could direct the respondents to grant that relaxation and consider or appoint the applicants to the Fireman posts

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants 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: Union of India v. Shivbachan Rai, (2001) 9 SCC 356.

It 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 and that granting relaxation may prejudice similarly situated candidates who did not apply because they believed themselves to be over-age.

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 must not direct or advise the executive on matters within its policy domain, subject to constitutional and statutory limits.

Under Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85, relaxation is impermissible unless duly reserved in the applicable rules or advertisement; the Tribunal also cited Ankita Thakur v. H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023, concerning post-deadline relaxation and the need for authority and publicity.

The Tribunal treated the notified upper age limit of 24 years as already reflecting the two-year one-time relaxation under G.O.Ms. No. 50 dated 29 July 2022.

It concluded that the applicants remained over-age and that granting them further relaxation would exceed the notified norms, intrude on executive policy, and potentially disadvantage similarly situated candidates who had not applied because of their age.

Applying the cited authorities, the Tribunal found no basis to direct a further relaxation or to single out the applicants for such relief.

Finding no merit in the Original Application, it dismissed the application and made no order as to costs.