Karnataka HC Upholds Tribunal’s Interim Refusal To Pause Teacher Recruitment For 46-Year-Old Seeking One-Time Age Relaxation

The petitioner, aged 46, challenged a recruitment notification dated 11 August 2026 for Graduate Primary School Teacher and Secondary School Assistant Teacher posts.

He argued that the notification failed to extend the five-year, one-time age relaxation provided by Government Order dated 29 January 2026 for recruitments made between 29 January and 31 December 2026.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal refused interim relief, finding no prima facie case; the petitioner then sought to quash that interim order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The State submitted that the applicable 2026 Special Rules had prescribed the age limits after taking the Government Order into account.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution were invoked to challenge the Tribunal’s interim order.

The court considered the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instruction) (Recruitment to Certain Teaching Posts) (Special) Rules, 2026, which prescribed age limits for the relevant teaching posts, and the Government Order dated 29 January 2026 providing a one-time age relaxation.

The court applied no cited precedent and did not determine the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to the relaxation; it reviewed only whether the Tribunal’s refusal of interim relief warranted interference.

The Tribunal had considered the applicable age limits in the 2026 Special Rules and concluded that, at the interim stage, it could not be accepted that the Government Order had been disregarded.

It also distinguished a recruitment notification for residential-school teachers, which allowed higher maximum ages, because the governing regulations for those posts had set lower original age limits and the relaxation was applied to those limits.

Given the applicable Special Rules and the Tribunal’s consideration of the material, the High Court found no basis to interfere with the refusal of interim relief.

It clarified that the Tribunal must decide the application without being influenced by the findings made at the interim stage or by the High Court’s observations.

The Tribunal was directed to consider the petitioner’s application independently, uninfluenced by the interim findings of either the Tribunal or the High Court.