Facts
The petitioner applied for appointment as Assistant Professor in Zoology pursuant to TPSC Advertisement No. 05/2025. The advertisement prescribed an upper age limit of 40 years as on 7 March 2025; the petitioner was aged 40 years and six days on that date. He sought one-time age relaxation and challenged the exclusion of Zoology from the subjects covered by TPSC notifications dated 7 and 10 March 2025.
Source reference: paras. 3–4, 7–11; pp. 3–6An earlier recruitment process under Advertisement No. 19/2017, which included Zoology, had been cancelled. The GA (P&T) Department’s memorandum dated 20 August 2018 provided one-time upper-age relaxation to candidates who had participated in the cancelled process, enabling them to participate once in a fresh recruitment process, subject to documentary proof of such participation.
Source reference: paras. 26–28; pp. 19–21Pursuant to Advertisement No. 08/2022, the petitioner participated in the Zoology selection process. He was below 40 years at that time, did not require age relaxation, and was ultimately unsuccessful.
Source reference: paras. 28, 33; pp. 20, 23For Advertisement No. 05/2025, TPSC granted age relaxation for certain subjects, including specified categories in Sanskrit and Commerce, but excluded Zoology because the petitioner’s opportunity to participate in the fresh process had already been provided through Advertisement No. 08/2022.
Source reference: paras. 29–33; pp. 20–23The petitioner’s representation was rejected by TPSC on 25 August 2025.
Source reference: para. 24; pp. 17–19His earlier writ petition had been dismissed, while W.A. No. 62/2025 merely directed TPSC to reconsider his representation in light of the notification dated 10 March 2025.
Source reference: paras. 22–24; pp. 15–17Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim one-time upper-age relaxation for participating in the recruitment process under Advertisement No. 05/2025, despite having participated in the fresh recruitment process under Advertisement No. 08/2022?
Source reference: paras. 26–34; pp. 19–242. Whether the exclusion of Zoology from the TPSC age-relaxation notifications dated 7 and 10 March 2025 was arbitrary or liable to be quashed?
Source reference: paras. 29–32; pp. 20–233. Whether the TPSC’s communication dated 25 August 2025 rejecting the petitioner’s representation required interference by the writ court?
Source reference: paras. 23–25, 34–35; pp. 16–19, 23–24Law Applied
The Court applied the GA (P&T) Department memorandum dated 20 August 2018, particularly paragraph 4, which granted eligible candidates from a cancelled recruitment process a one-time relaxation in the upper age limit to enable them to participate once in a fresh recruitment process, subject to documentary proof of prior participation.
Source reference: para. 26; p. 19The Court also applied the principle that a candidate cannot claim a one-time age-relaxation benefit repeatedly or indefinitely after having availed the opportunity to participate in the fresh recruitment process.
Source reference: paras. 33–34; pp. 23–24The Court considered the TPSC notifications dated 26 April 2022, 7 March 2025 and 10 March 2025 as administrative measures implementing the 2018 memorandum according to the vacancies and categories available in the relevant recruitment advertisements.
Source reference: paras. 25, 30–32; pp. 19–23The Court further treated the Division Bench’s order in W.A. No. 62/2025 as limited to reconsideration of the petitioner’s representation and not as conferring any substantive entitlement to age relaxation.
Source reference: para. 23; p. 16Reasoning
The Court held that the 2018 memorandum contemplated only one opportunity to participate in a fresh recruitment process.
Source reference: paras. 27–29, 33–34; pp. 20–24The petitioner had already participated in the Zoology recruitment pursuant to Advertisement No. 08/2022 after the cancellation of the 2017 process, and therefore the purpose of the one-time relaxation had been fulfilled, irrespective of his eventual failure in that selection.
Source reference: paras. 27–29, 33–34; pp. 20–24His fact that he was below 40 years in 2022 and did not actually need relaxation did not create a right to reserve or revive the benefit for a later recruitment process.
Source reference: paras. 33–34; pp. 23–24The Court also accepted TPSC’s explanation that relaxation in 2025 was granted only where particular categories had not been represented in earlier advertisements; Zoology was excluded because the relevant opportunity had already been provided in 2022.
Source reference: paras. 30–32; pp. 21–23The Division Bench’s direction required reconsideration only, which TPSC duly undertook before rejecting the claim.
Source reference: paras. 23–24; pp. 16–19Consequently, the Court found no arbitrariness, legal error, or enforceable right warranting a writ of mandamus.
Source reference: paras. 23–24, 34; pp. 16–19, 23–24Holding
The Court answered the issues against the petitioner.
It held that he was not entitled to a further one-time age relaxation for Advertisement No. 05/2025 because he had already participated in the fresh Zoology recruitment process under Advertisement No. 08/2022.
Source reference: paras. 34–35; p. 24The exclusion of Zoology from the 2025 relaxation notifications and the TPSC’s rejection dated 25 August 2025 were not interfered with.
Source reference: paras. 34–35; p. 24The writ petition was dismissed for want of merit; any interim order was vacated, and pending applications were disposed of.
Source reference: paras. 35–36; p. 24Original Court PDF
Dr. Ramananda Ghosh TarafdarvsThe State of Tripura and 6 Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
