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

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench has dismissed a batch of Original Applications challenging the upper age limit of 28 years prescribed for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Jammu & Kashmir Police Advertisement Notification, holding that candidates who have crossed the notified age limit cannot claim age relaxation as a matter of right merely because recruitment was delayed.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.BackgroundThe 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...

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers