No Vested Right To Age Relaxation Merely Because Recruitment Was Delayed: CAT Jammu Dismisses Sub-Inspector's Age Relaxation Plea

A Division Bench of Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member (Judicial), and Ram Mohan Johri, Member (Administrative), while observing that “delay in recruitment, by itself, does not create a vested right to seek relaxation, fixation of age limit is a matter of policy; and Courts/Tribunals cannot rewrite eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement,” held that “a one-time relaxation granted in a previous recruitment process cannot be converted into a perpetual rule for all future recruitments.”

The Tribunal was hearing multiple Original Applications filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, including OA No.1442/2024 and six connected matters, wherein the applicants sought a direction to the respondents to grant relaxation in the upper age limit up to 35 years (or 30 years in some cases), accept their application forms, and permit them to participate in the selection process for 669 posts of Sub-Inspector advertised by the Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Board.

Background

The applicants, who are domiciles of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, claimed eligibility for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in J&K Police except on the ground of age. Advertisement Notification prescribed the age limit as 18 to 28 years for Open Merit candidates, with age reckoned as on 01.01.2024.

The applicants contended that the earlier advertisement for Sub-Inspector posts was issued in the year 2021, and the present advertisement was issued after a gap of more than three years. On account of this delay, many otherwise eligible candidates crossed the prescribed upper age limit and were deprived of the opportunity to compete.

The applicants further relied upon the fact that in the earlier recruitment process the upper age limit had been relaxed from 28 years to 30 years through S.O. 420 of 2021 dated 10.12.2021, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. They submitted that denial of similar relaxation in the present recruitment was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

They also placed reliance upon Rule 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, contending that the Government is competent to relax rules in cases of hardship.

The respondents opposed the applications, submitting that the recruitment process was initiated strictly in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules. They explained that after issuance of S.O. 214 of 2021 dated 01.07.2021, recruitment to the posts of Constables and Sub-Inspectors was entrusted to the JKSSB.

The respondents further argued that the relaxation granted in 2021 was a one-time exception due to the COVID-19 pandemic and could not be treated as a precedent. They further submitted that the post of Sub-Inspector is a disciplined and physically demanding post, and the fixation of the upper age limit has a rational nexus with the nature of duties.

Court's Observations

The Tribunal noted at the outset that the very issue raised in the batch of OAs had already been examined by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in WP(C) No.3049/2024 titled Dinesh Singh Chib & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors., wherein the challenge to the same advertisement was dismissed. The High Court had held that the petitioners were required to first approach the competent authority empowered to consider age relaxation and that judicial review is meant to examine a decision-making process, whereas there was no decision before the Court.

The Tribunal further relied upon its own judgment concerning age relaxation for Constable posts, wherein it was held that delay in recruitment does not create a vested right to seek relaxation and that physically demanding police posts justify induction of young and energetic candidates. The Tribunal observed,

“... Delay in recruitment, by itself, does not create a vested right to seek relaxation; fixation of age limit is a matter of policy; and Courts/Tribunals cannot rewrite eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement.”

Referring to the earlier relaxation granted in 2021, the Tribunal held,

“A one-time relaxation granted in a previous recruitment process cannot be converted into a perpetual rule for all future recruitments. No candidate can claim parity in illegality or claim extension of a special benefit granted in a different factual setting.”

The Tribunal also recorded,

“... Delay in holding recruitment does not confer a vested right upon an overage candidate to compel the employer to relax eligibility conditions. A right to be considered arises only if a candidate satisfies the eligibility conditions prescribed under the rules and advertisement. A person who is overage under the notified rules cannot claim consideration as of right merely because recruitment was not conducted earlier.”

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Amit Lal Bhat (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 614, the Tribunal observed that a candidate who becomes overage cannot insist upon age relaxation merely because recruitment did not take place earlier. It further relied upon Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362, holding that where the advertisement prescribes a particular eligibility condition, the Court cannot add to or alter the same.

The Tribunal emphasized,

“... Courts and Tribunals cannot create a relaxation regime where none exists. Sympathy for overage aspirants, however genuine, cannot override statutory and policy requirements.” It found that the applicants had not demonstrated any arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that the prescription of the maximum age limit of 28 years had a rational nexus with the nature of the post.

The Tribunal thus held that the applicants failed to establish any legal right to claim age relaxation and that the challenge to Advertisement Notification insofar as it prescribed the maximum age limit of 28 years for the post of Sub-Inspector in J&K Police, was rejected. In view of these findings all Original Applications were dismissed.

However, liberty was reserved to the applicants to submit representations before the competent authority within two weeks, with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter. The recruitment process was directed to proceed without being stalled on account of such representation.

Case Title: Ashwani Singh and Others v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Others

Appearances

For Applicants: Mr. Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed, Mr. B.S. Bali, Mr. Rahul Singh Sohil, Mr. F.A. Natnoo, Mr. S.S. Ahmed, Mr. M.Z. Chowdhary

For Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Thappa, learned AAG; Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG; Mr. Abhimanyu Singh; Mr. Arkaj Kumar

Click here to read/download Judgment