Tribunal directs reconsideration of age relaxation for contractual employees based on parity and full disclosure.

The applicant, Madan Kumar, aged 40 years, an Ophthalmic Technician Grade-I on contract since 2005 at AIIMS, participated in a selection process for a permanent Ophthalmic Technician Grade-I position.

The selection involved a written examination and an interview.

The applicant appeared for the written examination on January 12, 2014, and scored 41 marks.

Respondent No. 3, Gopal Sah, also working on a temporary basis, scored 40 marks and was appointed.

The applicant was not called for the interview because he was deemed over-aged.

The respondents contended that the applicant failed to tick the "Government Employee" box in his application form, thus not receiving age relaxation.

However, the applicant had clearly mentioned his contractual employment details in Column 12 of his application form.

A comparative list showed both the applicant and Respondent No. 3 as "Departmental Candidate" belonging to the OBC category.

The AIIMS Recruitment Cell had initially forwarded the applicant's name to the Exam Section for the written test/interview, considering him eligible as an AIIMS employee under the age limit of 40 years.

The Institute's website uploaded individual marks on July 9, 2016.

The applicant's subsequent representations were rejected by an order dated July 25, 2018.

Whether non-grant of age relaxation to the applicant solely on the basis of non-ticking of a column in the application form, despite disclosure of contractual service in AIIMS, is legally sustainable.

Whether the impugned order dated July 25, 2018, suffers from arbitrariness or non-application of mind warranting interference by this Tribunal.

The Tribunal acknowledged the settled principle of service jurisprudence that selection authorities are bound to act fairly, reasonably, and non-arbitrarily, especially concerning eligibility and relaxation provisions.

It emphasized that while candidates are responsible for correctly filling application forms, the decision should not be purely mechanical if substantive facts are otherwise available on record.

The Tribunal implicitly relied on principles derived from Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution of India, as invoked by the applicant regarding discrimination and unequal treatment.

It also considered the impact of disturbances to concluded selections and third-party consequences.

The court found it undisputed that the applicant, having secured 41 marks, scored higher than Respondent No. 3 (40 marks), who was appointed.

The core of the dispute was the non-grant of age relaxation to the applicant.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's disclosure of his contractual employment since 2005 in his application form.

It highlighted the inconsistency in treating the applicant: initially found eligible and permitted to take the written exam, but later deemed over-aged for the interview.

Crucially, Respondent No. 3, similarly placed as a contractual employee, was granted age relaxation and appointed.

The Tribunal found the respondents' argument—that the applicant failed to tick the "Government Employee" box—to be technically narrow, especially since the applicant was not a "regular Government employee," thus making his omission of the tick box "not wholly unreasonable or mala fide".

The official note sheet F. No. 1-4/2000-Estt. (PF) indicated that the AIIMS Recruitment Cell itself had considered the applicant eligible for age relaxation as an AIIMS employee.

The court observed that the impugned order failed to holistically examine the issue, particularly the parity between the two contractual employees, and proceeded on a narrow technical ground without addressing the core grievance of discrimination.

While acknowledging the administrative and third-party consequences of overturning a selection concluded years ago, the Tribunal deemed reconsideration by the competent authority necessary, focusing on the applicant's contractual service, treatment of similarly placed candidates, and applicable age relaxation rules.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant's case afresh for age relaxation and consequential consideration for the post of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-I, strictly in accordance with relevant rules, instructions, and the treatment accorded to similarly situated candidates, including Respondent No. 3.

This reconsideration must result in a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed an opinion on the applicant's ultimate entitlement to appointment, leaving all issues open for the respondents to decide per law.

The Original Application was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.