Provisional participation cannot be ordered before competent authority decides age-relaxation requests under the Recruitment Rules.

The applicant, an educator under the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, challenged the Recruitment Rules for the posts of Principal and Vice-Principal and UPSC Special Advertisement No. 51/2026, particularly the alleged exclusion of teaching experience as a Primary Teacher/Assistant Teacher and the prescribed upper age limit of 35 years.

She sought permission to apply and participate in the recruitment process for Vacancy No. 26075101725, along with one-time age relaxation.

The applicant relied upon earlier proceedings, including O.A. No. 1631/2022 and the order dated 06.03.2024, in which the Tribunal had upheld the reasonableness of the 35-year age limit and declined to interfere with the Recruitment Rules.

The applicable Recruitment Rules empowered the Government, for recorded reasons and in consultation with the UPSC, to relax any provision of the Rules in respect of any class or category of persons.

The last date for submitting applications was 14.08.2026 and the examination was scheduled for 01.11.2026.

The respondents opposed provisional participation, contending that the applicant was overage and that the validity of the Recruitment Rules could not be examined at the interlocutory stage.

Whether the applicant was entitled to provisional participation in the recruitment process despite being over the prescribed upper age limit, pending consideration of her request for age relaxation?

Whether the Tribunal should, at the interim stage, interfere with or adjudicate upon the validity of the Recruitment Rules and the eligibility conditions prescribing the requisite experience and age limit?

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider the applicant’s request for relaxation under the power-to-relax clause of the Recruitment Rules?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that framing and amendment of Recruitment Rules fall primarily within the domain of the executive and legislature, and judicial interference is warranted only where the rules are shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory.

Clause 5 of the applicable Recruitment Rules authorised the Government, by a reasoned order and in consultation with the UPSC, to relax any provision of the Rules for a class or category of persons.

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

It relied on American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC 396, regarding protection of the subject matter of proceedings; Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388, regarding preservation 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, concerning exceptional interference with interlocutory orders; Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, (1984) 1 SCC 307, cautioning against provisional admission absent a clear prima facie case; and Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1, concerning reluctance to decide difficult merits issues at the interlocutory stage.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s request for provisional participation substantially overlapped with her substantive relief.

Granting such relief without first determining the validity of the challenged Recruitment Rules or the applicant’s entitlement to age relaxation would effectively grant the principal relief at the interim stage.

The applicant had not demonstrated a sufficiently strong prima facie case warranting provisional participation, particularly because an earlier Tribunal decision had upheld the 35-year age limit and no appeal had been filed against that decision.

Although the power to relax the age limit vested in the competent authority, the Tribunal held that the existence of that power did not require the Court itself to grant relaxation or direct provisional participation.

The competent authority was required to independently consider the applicant’s request in accordance with the Rules, relevant prior proceedings, the proposal dated 09.06.2026, and the circumstances of the recruitment.

The Tribunal also noted that, if relaxation were granted, the consequential question of extending the application deadline could be considered by the competent authority.

It directed the competent authority to consider and decide the applicant’s request for age relaxation within 30 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order, after taking into account the applicable Recruitment Rules, the power-to-relax provision, earlier proceedings, the proposal dated 09.06.2026, and the relevant facts and circumstances.

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

The O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage without expressing any opinion on the merits; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.