Provisional participation was declined; the competent authority must decide age-relaxation requests under the Recruitment Rules.

The 32 applicants were serving as Vice-Principals in schools under the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, having been appointed between June and October 2024.

They challenged Advertisement No. 51/2026 issued by the Union Public Service Commission for recruitment to the posts of Principal and Vice-Principal, principally contending that the Recruitment Rules, 2023 prescribed an arbitrary and uniform requirement of ten years’ service and that the upper age limit of 35 years effectively excluded departmental candidates from direct recruitment.

The applicants sought age relaxation, including on a one-time basis, relying upon Clause 5 of the applicable Recruitment Rules, which empowers the Government to relax the Rules, for recorded reasons and in consultation with the UPSC.

Since the last date for submitting applications was 14 August 2026 and the examination was scheduled for 1 November 2026, the applicants sought provisional permission to participate, subject to the competent authority’s decision on age relaxation.

The respondents opposed provisional participation, contending that the applicants were overage and that the prescribed age limit could not be interfered with at the interim stage.

The Tribunal also noted an earlier decision dated 6 March 2024 in O.A. No. 1631/2022, where the prescribed age limit of 35 years had not been found unreasonable or discriminatory.

Whether the applicants were entitled to provisional participation in the recruitment process under Advertisement No. 51/2026 despite being over the prescribed upper age limit, pending consideration of their request for age relaxation?

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider the applicants’ request for age relaxation under Clause 5 of the Recruitment Rules, 2023?

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate, at the admission/interim stage, the applicants’ challenge to the validity of the Recruitment Rules and the prescribed age/eligibility conditions?

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

Clause 5 of the applicable Recruitment Rules confers upon the Government the power, where necessary or expedient and for reasons recorded in writing, to relax any provision of the Rules in respect of a class or category of persons, in consultation with the UPSC.

The Tribunal applied the settled principles governing interim relief: an interlocutory order is intended to preserve the subject matter of proceedings and prevent the ultimate relief from becoming ineffective, as recognised in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC 396, and Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388.

Relying on Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, (2017) 13 SCC 115, read with Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, (2000) 5 SCC 57, and Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, (1984) 1 SCC 307, the Tribunal held that provisional participation should not ordinarily be granted unless the applicant has a clear and compelling case.

The Tribunal also relied on Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1, for the principle that difficult questions of law or fact should ordinarily not be conclusively decided at the interlocutory stage.

The Tribunal observed that the power to grant age relaxation was expressly vested in the competent authority under Clause 5 of the Recruitment Rules and that the applicants’ request had not yet been decided.

Although the applicants relied on the impending application deadline and examination date, the Tribunal found that permitting them to participate provisionally would substantially overlap with the principal relief sought and could amount to prejudging the challenge to the Recruitment Rules.

The earlier decision dated 6 March 2024, which had upheld the reasonableness of the 35-year age limit, also militated against granting interim relief without a fuller examination of the matter.

The Tribunal held that the applicants had not, at that stage, established a prima facie case warranting provisional participation, particularly when the executive authority had not yet exercised or refused to exercise its statutory power of relaxation.

At the same time, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to preserve the applicants’ substantive opportunity by directing the competent authority to decide their request expeditiously, while leaving open the possibility of extending the application deadline if age relaxation were ultimately granted.

It directed the competent authority to consider and decide the applicants’ 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 relaxation provision, earlier proceedings, the proposal dated 9 June 2026, and the circumstances of the case.

If relaxation were granted, the competent authority was also directed to consider, in accordance with law, consequential extension of the application deadline of 14 August 2026.

The O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage without costs, and the pending M.A. was allowed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stood disposed of.