Courts cannot direct age relaxation; the competent authority must decide such relaxation in accordance with applicable rules.

The applicant possessed a 10+2 qualification in Science and a four-year General Nursing Training qualification.

She was engaged as a Staff Nurse on a consolidated salary of ₹6,000 per month and posted at Verinag under the Chief Medical Officer, Anantnag, in March 2007.

The J&K Services Selection Board advertised posts of Junior Grade Nurse, including 250 Divisional Cadre posts, for candidates possessing 10+2 with a Diploma in General Nursing; the applicant applied for the post and was allotted Serial No. 72.

The applicant alleged that, although qualified, she was not permitted to appear in the interview because the respondents treated her as having crossed the prescribed age limit.

The respondents contended that she was not holding a post entitling her to age relaxation and had not produced a valid certificate establishing her status as an in-service candidate.

The matter, originally filed before the High Court in 2011, was transferred to the Tribunal, dismissed for non-prosecution, and subsequently restored.

Whether the applicant was entitled to age relaxation and consideration for the Junior Grade Nurse selection as an in-service candidate.

Whether the Tribunal could direct the respondents to relax the prescribed age limit or order the applicant’s selection and appointment.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regularisation or continued engagement in view of her contractual service under the National Health Mission.

The Tribunal applied the principle that relaxation of an eligibility condition, including the prescribed age limit, falls within the discretion and domain of the competent administrative authority and cannot ordinarily be directed by the Court.

It also applied the rule that contractual engagement under the National Health Mission does not, by itself, confer a right to regularisation where the governing scheme, rules or policy contain no provision for such regularisation.

At the same time, where a contractual employee continues to be engaged and the services remain required under the applicable scheme or policy, the administration should not replace that employee through another arrangement of the same nature without considering the employee’s case.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Tribunal declined to grant the applicant’s requested age relaxation because the respondents disputed her status as an in-service candidate and because determination of whether the age requirement should be relaxed was reserved for the competent authority.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no basis to order her interview, selection or appointment as Junior Grade Nurse.

Regarding regularisation, the material before the Tribunal indicated that the applicant had been engaged under the NHM on a contractual basis and that no applicable NHM rule or policy authorised regularisation.

However, since the matter had remained pending for more than fifteen years and it was unclear whether she continued in service, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to direct administrative consideration rather than finally determine her entitlement.

It disposed of the transfer application by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation and pass appropriate orders in light of the applicant’s claims.

The respondents were further directed that, if the applicant was still continuing under her initial engagement and her services remained required under the relevant scheme or policy, she should not be replaced by another person through a similar contractual arrangement.

The transfer application and connected miscellaneous applications were accordingly disposed of.