AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
Present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"A. Quash and set aside the Deficiency Memo dated 10.08.2026 (ANNEXURE A-1) to extent that it finally closes/disqualifies the Applicant's candidature solely on the ground of age without consideration of his claim under Rule 5,
B. Direct the competent Respondent authority to consider the Applicant's case under Rule 5 of the Directorate of Education, Drawing Teacher (Excluding Geometrical and Mechanical Drawing) Recruitment Rules, 2015, in accordance with law,
C. Direct that such consideration take into account all relevant circumstances, including:
(i)the Applicant's age as calculated on the crucial date and the limited extent of the difference between his age and the ordinary upper-age limit,
(ii)the prolonged recruitment process,
(iii)the Applicant's participation in the examination,
(iv)his successful completion of the selection process;
(v)his selection/provisional nomination;
(vi)the offer of appointment,
(vii)the fact that the age objection was communicated only at document verification;
(viii)his substantial teaching experience;
(ix)the status and applicability of the one-time age-relaxation proposal/order; and
(x)all other relevant circumstances permissible under the governing Rules;
D. In the event any one-time age-relaxation decision/order is found to have been duly approved and to be applicable to Advertisement No. 02/2024/Post Code 811/24, direct the Respondents to consider and extend the benefit thereof to the Applicant in accordance with law;
E. Upon the Applicant being found eligible pursuant to a lawful relaxation, direct the Respondents to complete his appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher, subject to his merit position and fulfilment of all other prescribed conditions,
F. In the alternative, direct the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the Applicant's claim under Rule 5 within a period of four weeks,
G. Pending such consideration and disposal of the Original Application, direct the Respondents to keep at least one post/vacancy of Drawing Teacher under Advertisement No. 02/2024, Post Code 811/24, unfilled and available for giving effect to any relief that may ultimately be granted to the Applicant, without disturbing the recruitment process in respect of other vacancies;
H. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has more than 10 years of experience as a Drawing Teacher at Agra College in the same subject, i.e. Drawing. He refers to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Drawing Teacher (excluding Geometrical and Mechanical Drawing), 2015, particularly Clause 5 thereof, which is reproduced below:
“5.Power to relax.- Where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons.”
Drawing the attention of this Bench to the aforementioned clause, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant already possesses more than 10 years of experience in teaching the same subject. He submits that, when the respondents issue an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Drawing Teacher, they may consider granting relaxation in the prescribed experience requirement so as to take into account the legitimate expectation of the applicant. In this regard, the applicant has submitted a representation dated 17.08.2025 to the Director of Education (respondent). However, the respondents have not taken any decision on the said representation till date.
Issue notice. Mr. H. A. Khan and Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsels, who appear for respondents on advance service, accept notice on behalf of their respective respondents.
Mr. H. A. Khan, learned counsels for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submit that the applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands. He submits that the advertisement placed on record by the applicant is merely an extract of the advertisement and does not constitute the complete advertisement pursuant to which the recruitment process was initiated.
Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the advertisement was issued on 14.12.2023 and now the recruitment process has already been completed. Hence, the rules of the game cannot be changed at this stage, particularly when the recruitment process has already concluded. In view thereof, he submits that the present OA deserves to be dismissed in limine.
Heard both sides.
As stated by learned counsel for the respondents, the recruitment process has already been concluded. Therefore, the issue of grant of age relaxation cannot be entertained after conclusion of the recruitment process. Moreover, the applicant had already participated in the examination process with full knowledge that no age relaxation was provided for. Having participated in the recruitment process with such knowledge, the applicant has raised the issue only at this stage.
In view of what has been recorded hereinabove, the present OA is dismissed for want of merit at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs.