Provisional participation was denied; age-relaxation requests must be decided by the competent authority under recruitment rules.

The twelve applicants, serving as Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning their eligibility for recruitment or promotion to the posts of Principal/Vice-Principal.

The reliefs pleaded included amendment of the Recruitment Rules to recognize Primary Teacher experience, consideration of their representation, setting aside of UPSC Advertisement No. 51/2026, and interim permission to participate in the selection process.

During hearing, however, the applicants’ principal grievance was identified as the upper age limit of 35 years prescribed for direct recruitment and the consequent denial of their candidature.

The applicants relied upon earlier proceedings, including the order dated 6 March 2024 in O.A. No. 1631/2022, in which 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 on the ground that the applicants exceeded the prescribed age limit and that the examination was scheduled for 1 November 2026.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to one-time relaxation of the prescribed upper age limit for direct recruitment to the posts of Principal/Vice-Principal under the power-to-relax provision in the applicable Recruitment Rules?

2. Whether the Tribunal should permit the applicants to participate provisionally in the selection process pending a decision by the competent authority on their request for age relaxation?

3. Whether the Tribunal should interfere at the interlocutory stage with the Recruitment Rules or the prescribed upper age limit?

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

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

The Tribunal applied the principle that formulation and amendment of service Recruitment Rules primarily fall within the domain of the Executive and Legislature, and that judicial interference is warranted only where the rules are arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory.

For interim relief, it 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, concerning protection of rights pending final adjudication; Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388, concerning preservation of the subject matter so that final relief is not rendered nugatory; Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, (2017) 13 SCC 115, and Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, (2000) 5 SCC 57, regarding restraint in interfering with interlocutory orders; Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, (1984) 1 SCC 307, cautioning against provisional admission absent a clear and compelling case; and Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1, regarding reluctance to determine difficult legal or factual issues at the interlocutory stage.

The Tribunal noted that the statutory and regulatory power to grant age relaxation vested in the competent authority, not directly in the Tribunal.

Although the applicants relied on the earlier proposal granting one-time age relaxation for TGT recruitment as a relevant circumstance, the Tribunal held that the proposal could not itself determine the applicants’ entitlement to relaxation in the present recruitment.

The earlier decision upholding the 35-year age limit also militated against immediate interference with the Recruitment Rules.

The request for provisional participation substantially overlapped with the substantive relief sought.

The applicants had not established a prima facie case warranting such extraordinary interim relief, and permitting participation would risk granting the principal relief before the competent authority had considered the representation and the relevant regulatory material.

The Tribunal therefore declined to conduct a mini-trial or prejudge the validity of the Recruitment Rules.

At the same time, it recognized that refusal to consider the request expeditiously could prejudice the applicants because the application deadline was 14 August 2026 and the examination was scheduled for 1 November 2026.

It consequently directed the competent authority to take a holistic decision within 30 days, including consideration of the Rules, prior proceedings, the 9 June 2026 proposal, and the surrounding circumstances.

It expressly left the merits of the age-relaxation claim open and directed the competent authority to decide the applicants’ request in accordance with Clause 5 of the Recruitment Rules within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.

If age relaxation were granted, the competent authority was also directed to consider, in accordance with law, consequential extension of the deadline for submission of applications.

The Original Application was disposed of at the admission stage without any opinion on the merits, pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.