Inordinate recruitment delays justify provisional participation of candidates seeking age relaxation pending administrative decision.

The applicants sought to apply for the post of Grade-II (GNCTDSS)/Assistant Section Officer (formerly DASS) under Post Code 804/26, as advertised in Vacancy Notice No. 01/2026

The recruitment for this post was previously conducted in 2013 and 2017; however, the current notification was issued in 2026 after an inordinate gap of approximately nine years

Due to this delay, many applicants exceeded the prescribed upper age limit of 30 years

The applicants submitted representations to the competent authority requesting a one-time age relaxation of up to five years, citing the recruitment hiatus and a 2017 precedent where the Lt. Governor granted a similar relaxation

With the application deadline of March 25, 2026, approaching and their representations remaining undecided, the applicants approached the Tribunal for provisional permission to participate in the selection process

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to provisional participation in the recruitment process pending the disposal of their representations for age relaxation, considering the nine-year delay in issuing the advertisement

2. Whether the failure of the respondents to decide on age relaxation representations before the application deadline constitutes an arbitrary omission warranting judicial intervention

Rule 14 of the relevant service rules (and Rule 32 of the Delhi Administration Subordinate Services Rules, 1967), which empowers the competent authority to relax recruitment conditions, including age

The Supreme Court’s holding in Rachna and Others v. Union of India (2021) 5 SCC 638, which establishes that age relaxation is a policy matter within the discretion of the user department

Precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar & Ors. v. DSSSB & Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 901/2025), where candidates were allowed to participate in a selection process to balance equities when recruitment was delayed through no fault of the candidates

The Tribunal observed that the significant nine-year delay in initiating the recruitment process distinguished this matter from cases where age relaxation was denied as a routine request

While acknowledging the respondents' argument—based on Bipin Nagar v. Office of the Principal District and Sessions Judge—that age relaxation is a discretionary concession rather than a right, the Tribunal noted that the respondents had not decided on the pending representations despite multiple opportunities to seek instructions

By applying the principle of balancing equities found in Ajay Kumar, the Tribunal determined that forcing applicants to miss the application deadline while their statutory representations remained pending would cause irreparable loss

The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 14 provides a specific mechanism for relaxation which the competent authority is bound to consider on a case-to-case basis

The Tribunal held that the competent authority must consider and decide the applicants' representations on a case-to-case basis in accordance with the law

The Tribunal clarified that this provisional participation is without prejudice to the rights of either party and does not confer any indefeasible right upon the applicants to claim appointment, even if they are found meritorious

No order as to costs was made