Part-time service in a non-government regimental institute confers no right to age relaxation or regularization.

The applicant claimed that he was appointed as a casual labourer on 1 July 1996 after his name was requisitioned from the Employment Exchange and that he continuously worked under the administrative control of Respondent No. 4 until July 2015.

In 2015, Respondent No. 4 advertised vacancies for Mazdoor in the regular pay scale of Rs. 5,200–20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800.

The applicant applied on 11 June 2015 but, being overage, submitted a representation seeking age relaxation on account of his past service.

He sought directions for age relaxation and priority in recruitment, or alternatively regularisation of his services.

The respondents contended that the applicant had worked part-time for a Gas Sewa Agency, a regimental institute, and that his remuneration was paid from the agency’s private funds.

The agency’s services were terminated with effect from 10 October 2014.

They further asserted that the applicant was not a Government casual labourer entitled to temporary status or regularisation, and that age relaxation was available only to departmental candidates holding regular Government posts.

The Tribunal also noted that, pursuant to earlier directions, the applicant had been given an opportunity to seek regular appointment, but his case could not be considered in 2013 because he did not possess the requisite matriculation qualification.

1. Whether the applicant, having worked on a part-time basis for a regimental Gas Sewa Agency, was entitled to age relaxation or preference in recruitment to the advertised post of Mazdoor.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to regularisation or conferment of temporary status on the basis of his past service as a casual labourer.

3. Whether the Tribunal could direct relaxation of the prescribed age and educational qualifications contrary to the recruitment conditions and applicable Government instructions.

Appointment to a post under the State must ordinarily follow public advertisement, eligibility under the applicable recruitment rules, and selection on merit through the prescribed process.

A candidate has no absolute right to claim relaxation of recruitment rules; the decision whether and when to exercise such discretion lies within the domain of the competent authority, particularly where eligible candidates are available.

Age relaxation under the relevant recruitment process was unavailable to the applicant because he was not a departmental candidate holding a regular Government post.

Under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, temporary, contractual, or daily-wage employees have no fundamental right to regularisation; the limited one-time regularisation principle applies only to duly qualified persons working for ten years or more against sanctioned posts without intervention of courts or tribunals.

The Tribunal also relied on University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University, (2001) 8 SCC 546, Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University, (2008) 9 SCC 284, and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, (1990) 1 SCC 305, for the principle that courts should not substitute their views for those of expert selection authorities absent illegality, material procedural irregularity, or mala fides.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been engaged on a part-time basis by the Gas Sewa Agency, which was a regimental institute rather than a Government agency, and had ceased to function in 2014.

Consequently, his past engagement did not make him a departmental candidate or confer upon him the status of a regular Government employee for purposes of age relaxation.

The recruitment advertisement prescribed age and educational eligibility, and the applicant exceeded the permissible age while also lacking the required matriculation qualification.

Since relaxation was not an enforceable right and the applicant had no statutory entitlement to regularisation or temporary status, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the respondents’ decision.

The earlier directions to consider him when a vacancy arose had been complied with by providing an opportunity to participate in the recruitment process; those directions did not dispense with the applicable eligibility requirements.

Finding no legal infirmity in the respondents’ action, it dismissed the Original Application and imposed no costs.

Any pending Miscellaneous Applications were also disposed of.