Courts cannot direct one-time recruitment age relaxation absent authority in the governing rules or advertisement.

The applicants challenged their exclusion from consideration for 26 Statistical Inspector vacancies advertised by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Puducherry, on the ground that they exceeded the prescribed upper age limit.

They claimed category-based relaxation and additional relaxation under Government orders, including the two-year COVID-related relaxation issued on 29 July 2022.

The respondents maintained that the COVID relaxation applied to Group C posts, whereas the Statistical Inspector post had been classified as Group B, for which further relaxation required approval of the competent Union authorities.

The Tribunal had provisionally directed acceptance of the applicants’ manual applications and participation in the selection, with their results to be kept in a sealed cover and appointments made subject to the OA’s outcome.

The respondents sought vacation of that interim order.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to further age relaxation beyond the limits applicable under the recruitment notification and relevant Government orders

2. Whether the Tribunal could direct acceptance of the applicants’ manual applications and their consideration for appointment despite their being over-age

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the basis for the OA.

The Tribunal applied the principle in Union of India v. Shivbachan Rai, (2001) 9 SCC 356, that prescribing age limits and the extent of relaxation are matters for the Government when framing rules.

Relying on N.S. Siva Kumar v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, (2020) 2 CTC 241, it held that delay in recruitment does not, without more, justify additional age relaxation and that granting relief to some candidates may prejudice similarly situated persons who did not apply.

Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of A.P., (1990) 2 SCC 707, and Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364, affirm that courts should not direct or advise the executive on matters within its policy domain, subject to judicial review for legal or constitutional limits.

Under Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85, and Ankita Thakur v. H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023, eligibility relaxation must be authorised by the rules or advertisement and cannot be introduced after the application deadline without such authority.

The Tribunal found that all applicants were over the prescribed age.

The COVID-related two-year relaxation relied upon by them applied to Group C posts, while the Statistical Inspector post had been classified as Group B; the respondents stated that further relaxation for that post required approval from the Union Public Service Commission and the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Applying the cited authorities, the Tribunal treated the extent of age relaxation as a matter of executive policy and declined to grant individual relief that could disadvantage similarly situated candidates who had not applied because they were over-age.

It also concluded that judicial directions could not create a relaxation not authorised under the applicable recruitment terms.

It dismissed the OA, closed the pending MAs, and made no order as to costs.