Judicial review of Recruitment Rules limited; policy decisions are Executive domain.

The applicant sought to apply for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Post Code 41/22) under Advertisement No. 08/2022 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB).

However, the applicant was over the stipulated maximum age limit of 30 years by a few months at the time of application.

The age limit was prescribed in accordance with the Directorate of Education, Physical Education Teacher (Group B Post) Recruitment Rules, 2011.

The applicant sent an email on 14.10.2022 requesting an enhancement of the maximum age limit for Physical Education Teachers, citing a variance with similar organizations like Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) and Navodaya Vidyalaya Sangathan (NVS) where the age limit is 35 years.

The applicant did not receive a response to the email and subsequently filed the present Original Application seeking relief, including a direction to amend the Recruitment Rules and allow him to apply despite being overage.

The applicant did not apply for the said post and was not granted interim relief to do so.

Recruitment to the post was made subject to the outcome of this Original Application by order dated 17.11.2022.

1. Whether the Recruitment Rules for the post of Physical Education Teacher should be amended to increase the age limit from 30 years?

2. Whether the impugned Advertisement No. 08/2022 should be modified to allow the applicant, who is above 30 years, to apply for the post of Physical Education Teacher?

3. Whether the respondents should be directed to accept the applicant's application form for the respective posts, treating him within the prescribed/qualifying age?

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle that Recruitment Rules are framed in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and constitute policy decisions falling within the domain of the Executive.

The scope of judicial review in such policy matters is limited, as affirmed by a catena of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal also referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others vs. Sahina Masarat & Another, Civil Appeal No. 499 of 2012, decided on 29.09.2021, which held that the upper age limit ordinarily cannot be relaxed beyond the prescribed limit, even if discretion is conferred.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not apply for the post and no interim relief was granted allowing him to apply, rendering the question of granting age relaxation for Post Code 41/22 infructuous.

Regarding the challenge to the Recruitment Rules, the Tribunal reiterated that such rules are policy decisions falling within the Executive's domain under Article 309 of the Constitution, and judicial intervention is limited.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the applicant for amending the Recruitment Rules are matters best addressed by the Executive.

The contention that other organizations like KVS and NVS have higher age limits does not automatically entitle the applicant to age relaxation in this specific case.

The respondents correctly argued that the "rules of the game cannot be changed midway once the advertisement has been issued" and that the age criteria in the advertisement strictly adhered to the extant Recruitment Rules.

The Tribunal held that the question of granting age relaxation to the applicant for Post Code 41/22 did not arise given his failure to apply for the post and the absence of any interim order allowing him to do so.

The Tribunal further held that the challenge to the Recruitment Rules, being policy decisions, falls outside the scope of judicial review in this context.

The applicant's prayers for amendment of the Recruitment Rules and modification of the advertisement were consequently denied.