Statutory female age ceiling cannot be enhanced by general age-limit revision absent rule amendment.

The applicant, born on 09.04.1976 and belonging to the Unreserved category, had worked continuously as a TGT (Social Science) Guest Teacher with the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, since 2013.

DSSSB issued Advertisement No. 02/2021 dated 12.05.2021 for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female), Post Code 40/21, prescribing an upper age limit of 40 years for women candidates; the closing date was 24.06.2021.

The applicant appeared in the examination, secured 128.29 marks against the UR cut-off of 115.21 marks, and was provisionally selected after uploading her e-dossier.

Her candidature was subsequently cancelled by the Directorate of Education on 09.06.2023 on the ground that she exceeded the permissible age limit.

As on the relevant cut-off date, 04.07.2021, she was aged 45 years, 2 months and 25 days.

She claimed that the upper age limit for women should be treated as 42 years, with an additional Guest Teacher relaxation of up to five years, and sought quashing of the cancellation order and related recruitment provisions.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to claim an upper age limit of 42 years for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female), on the basis of the subsequent enhancement of the general upper age limit from 30 to 32 years.

2. Whether the applicant could combine the female-candidate relaxation with the Guest Teacher relaxation under the Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019 so as to claim eligibility beyond 45 years.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to a further relaxation of 2 months and 25 days on account of her continuous service, higher examination marks and marginal excess over the prescribed maximum age.

4. Whether the cancellation of the applicant’s candidature dated 09.06.2023 was legally sustainable.

The Tribunal applied the statutory Recruitment Rules notified on 11.12.1991, which prescribed the upper age limit for the post and provided that it was “relaxable up to 40 years in case of female candidates”.

It held that notified Recruitment Rules constitute the binding statutory framework and cannot be altered by judicial interpretation in the absence of a subsequent amendment or statutory notification.

The Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019 permitted eligible contractual teaching employees to receive a one-time age relaxation corresponding to the period of contractual service, subject to a maximum of five years.

Shelja Dhama v. DSSSB, OA No. 1039/2021, was relied upon as recognising the female-candidate ceiling of 40 years under the applicable Rules.

Archaeological Survey of India v. Niraj Kumar Sinha, MANU/DE/9165/2006, did not justify treating the specific 40-year ceiling as enhanced to 42 years.

Richa Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 4 SCC 179, could not be used to enlarge an express statutory prescription.

Under State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shanti Devi, Civil Appeal No. 5207 of 2022, decided on 08.08.2022, no candidate possesses a vested right to age relaxation, and selective relaxation would undermine uniformity and fairness in recruitment.

The Tribunal held that the Recruitment Rules specifically fixed the maximum age for female candidates at 40 years.

The later DoPT enhancement of the general age limit from 30 to 32 years did not automatically amend the separately notified female-candidate ceiling, since no amendment to the applicable Recruitment Rules had been produced.

The applicant was accordingly entitled only to the 40-year female-candidate limit, together with the maximum five-year Guest Teacher relaxation under the 11.06.2019 OM, resulting in a maximum permissible age of 45 years.

Her age of 45 years, 2 months and 25 days therefore exceeded the permissible limit by 2 months and 25 days.

Her higher marks, continuous service and marginal age excess could not override the statutory eligibility requirement, particularly after the available relaxations had been exhausted.

The Tribunal also distinguished Pawanjit Kaur, observing that it concerned computation of contractual service and did not authorise enlargement of the statutory maximum age.

Since she was over-aged by 2 months and 25 days as on 04.07.2021, the cancellation of her candidature by order dated 09.06.2023 was upheld.

The OA was dismissed, pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.