Provisional participation cannot be directed absent a prima facie case where age relaxation lies with the competent authority.

Seventy-nine applicants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the maximum age limit of 35 years prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Vice-Principal under the Vice Principal Recruitment Rules, 2018.

They also challenged UPSC Advertisement No. 51/2026, which invited applications for appointment to the posts of Principal and Vice-Principal in the Directorate of Education, GNCTD.

The applicants, many of whom were departmental candidates, sought a one-time relaxation of the upper age limit so that they could participate in the recruitment process.

The applicants relied upon earlier proceedings, particularly the order dated 6 March 2024 in O.A. No. 1631/2022, where the Tribunal had upheld the reasonableness of the 35-year age limit and declined to interfere with the Recruitment Rules.

The respondents opposed provisional participation, submitting that the applicants were overage and that the Recruitment Rules could not be reopened at that stage; the examination was scheduled for 1 November 2026, while the last date for applications was 14 August 2026.

Whether the applicants were entitled to provisional participation in the Vice-Principal recruitment process despite exceeding the 35-year upper age limit prescribed by the Vice Principal Recruitment Rules, 2018?

Whether the challenge to the age-limit provision and the applicants’ request for one-time age relaxation should be decided by the Tribunal at the interlocutory stage, or left initially to the competent authority under Clause 5 of the Recruitment Rules?

Whether, if age relaxation were granted, the competent authority should also consider extending the closing date for submission of applications?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the Original Application was instituted.

The constitutional challenge was assessed with reference to Articles 14 and 16, although the Tribunal did not finally adjudicate its merits.

Clause 5 of the Vice Principal Recruitment Rules, 2018 confers a discretionary power upon the Government to relax any provision of the Rules, for reasons recorded in writing and in consultation with the UPSC.

The Tribunal relied on the principle that framing and amendment of service rules ordinarily fall within the domain of the Executive and Legislature, and judicial interference is warranted only where the rule is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory.

For interim relief, it applied the requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

It further relied on American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC 396, concerning protection of the subject matter pending final adjudication; Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388, on preserving the efficacy of the ultimate relief; Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, (2017) 13 SCC 115, and Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, (2000) 5 SCC 57, on restraint in granting provisional admission; Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, (1984) 1 SCC 307, on provisional admission not being granted as a matter of course; and Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1, on avoiding determination of difficult factual or legal questions at the interlocutory stage.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ principal grievance was their exclusion from the recruitment process because of the 35-year age limit and that their request for provisional participation substantially overlapped with the final relief sought in the O.A.

Although Clause 5 vested the competent authority with power to grant relaxation, the Tribunal considered that the request should first be examined administratively, particularly because the applicants’ representations had not yet been decided and the earlier order dated 6 March 2024 had upheld the existing age limit.

The Tribunal declined to conduct a “mini-trial” or prejudge the constitutional challenge to the Recruitment Rules at the interim stage.

It held that the applicants had not established a prima facie case sufficient to justify provisional participation, and that granting such relief could effectively amount to granting the substantive relief before the respondents had taken a decision under the relaxation power.

The Tribunal nevertheless directed the competent authority to consider the request holistically, including the Recruitment Rules, earlier proceedings, the proposal for one-time relaxation in the TGT recruitment, and the relevant facts and circumstances.

The competent authority was directed to decide the applicants’ request for age relaxation within 30 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with the applicable Rules and after considering the specified materials and circumstances.

If relaxation were granted, the authority was also directed to consider, in accordance with law, the consequential request for extension of the application deadline.

The O.A. was accordingly disposed of at the admission stage, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.

The Tribunal allowed M.A. No. 3921/2026 and permitted the applicants to pursue the O.A. jointly.