No relaxation reference can be directed absent representation; subsequent requests must be decided within 30 days.

The petitioners were unemployed B.Sc. graduates pursuing a two-year B.Ed. course and had completed its first year.

The State authorities issued an advertisement dated 28 July 2026 for appointment to the post of Teacher (Agriculture), prescribing graduation with 50% marks and B.Ed. as the educational qualification.

The petitioners claimed that they were otherwise qualified but had not yet completed the second year of the B.Ed. course.

They sought permission to participate in the selection process, permission to complete the B.Ed. course during employment if selected, and a direction to the State authorities to seek relaxation from the National Council for Teacher Education under Clause V of the notification dated 12 November 2014.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioners did not possess the prescribed qualification and could not claim relaxation as a matter of right.

Whether the petitioners, having completed only the first year of the two-year B.Ed. course, could be permitted to participate in the selection process for Teacher (Agriculture) contrary to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated 28 July 2026?

Whether the Court could direct the competent authority to make a reference to the National Council for Teacher Education for relaxation under Clause V of the notification dated 12 November 2014?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction for consideration of their request for such relaxation?

The Court applied the principle that eligibility for public appointment must ordinarily conform to the qualifications prescribed in the recruitment advertisement, and that a candidate cannot claim relaxation as a matter of right in the absence of an order by the competent authority.

It further considered Clause V of the notification dated 12 November 2014, under which relaxation could be sought from the National Council for Teacher Education, subject to consideration by the competent authority.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that a writ direction for consideration of a specific request cannot ordinarily be issued where the concerned party has not first made an appropriate representation before the competent authority.

The Court noted that the petitioners had not completed the prescribed two-year B.Ed. qualification and that completion of only the first year did not, by itself, establish eligibility under the advertisement.

It also held that the requested direction to the State authorities to make a reference for relaxation could not be granted because the petitioners had not made a representation specifically seeking such reference.

However, without granting eligibility or participation as a matter of right, the Court preserved the petitioners’ opportunity to pursue the appropriate administrative remedy.

It permitted them to submit a representation seeking relaxation under Clause V and directed the competent authority to consider and decide that representation in accordance with law within 30 days of receipt.

It disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation to the competent authority seeking a reference for relaxation under Clause V of the notification dated 12 November 2014.

If such representation was made, the competent authority was directed to decide it in accordance with law within 30 days from its receipt.