Tripura High Court Rejects Age Relaxation Claim Of Candidate Who Failed To Prove Cancellation Of Earlier Recruitment Process

  • Tripura High Court Rejects Age Relaxation Claim Of Candidate Who Failed To Prove Cancellation Of Earlier Recruitment Process
    Listen to this Article

    The Tripura High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking age relaxation in a recruitment process conducted by the Joint Recruitment Board of Tripura (JRBT), holding that he failed to establish that the earlier recruitment advertisement under which he had applied was subsequently cancelled.

    The Court observed that merely producing a token evidencing participation in an earlier recruitment process was insufficient to claim age relaxation without documentary proof that the recruitment process had been cancelled.

    Justice Biswajit Palit held that: “It was also the duty of the petitioner to produce documentary evidence on record that the said notification dated 25.09.2018 issued by the Department of Agriculture was cancelled by the Department…The JRBT rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner.”

    The petitioner, Nayan Kumar Dhar, had participated in a recruitment process for the post of Agriculture Assistant (TAFS Grade-III) pursuant to an advertisement dated September 25, 2018.

    Following a subsequent recruitment notification issued by the Joint Recruitment Board of Tripura (JRBT) in 2021, he applied for Group-C posts, claiming one-time upper-age relaxation on the ground that his earlier recruitment process had been cancelled.

    Although he secured 121.75 marks in the written examination and interview, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he was overage. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court seeking consideration of his candidature and inclusion in the merit list.

    The Tripura High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to one-time age relaxation as he failed to establish that the September 25, 2018 recruitment advertisement had been cancelled.

    The Court observed that the petitioner was required to produce documentary evidence of such cancellation and could have sought the information under the RTI Act.

    Finding no sufficient material to substantiate his claim, the Court held that the JRBT had rightly rejected his candidature and dismissed the writ petition.

    Date of Decision: 03.10.2026

    Case Title :  Sri Nayan Kumar Dhar v/s The State of TripuraCase Number :  WP (C ) No.345 of 2024
    Next Story