Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Nirmaladevy J vs Ut Of Puducherry on 3 July, 2025
1 of 8
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
M.A.NO.310/378 OF 2025
IN &
O.A. No.310/00681 of 2025
DATED THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)
1) Nirmaladevy. J,
D/o. A Jayamoorthy,
No. 35, Ariyapalayam,
Villianur post,
Puducherry 605 110;
2) Zhamala Devi.G,
D/o. S Ganesan,
No. 9, South Street,
Korkadu and Post, Villianur(Via).
Puducherry-605 110;
3) Veeri Venkata Surya Vinay Kumar,
S/o. Veeri Bhaskara Rao,
No.9-1-124, 3rd Cross Street,
Udaya Krishna Vamsi Nagar,
Yanam -533464;
4) Jagadish.G,
S/o. Gubandiran.N,
No. 52-A, Kamatchi Amman Koil Street,
Puducherry-605 001;
5) Poornima Arunagiri,
D/o. Arunagiri.M.
No.64, Jeevanandham Street,
Puducherry-605 001;
6) Raja I,
S/o. S. Iyyanar,
No. 170, Annaikarai Street,
Kathirkamam (Post),
Puducherry-605 009;
2 of 8
7) Kathiravan Jeeva.G,
S/o., Govindasamy,
No.2, Perumal Koil Street,
Varichikudi,
Puducherry-605 609;
8) Pradish Kumar.G,
S/o. Gnanasegaran,
No.34, Jaganatha Padayachi Street,
Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry-605 004;
9) Raveendhar R.V.,
S/o. Veerangan,
No. 1, 3rd Cross, Sri Ram Nagar,
Ariyankuppam,
Puducherry-605 607;
10) B.Pradeeba,
W/o. Pugazhvendhan,
P. No.51, 52, First Cross Street,
Anandham Nagar, Arunthathoyarpuram,
Puducherry-605007. ..........Applicants/Applicants
(Advocate: M/s. Stalin Abhimanyu )
Vs.
Union of India,
Rep. by Collector-cum-Special Secretary (Revenue)
1-Floor New Revenue Complex
Vazhudavur Road, Pettaiyanchattiram,
Puducherry-605 009.
......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. R. Syed Mustafa)
3 of 8
ORAL ORDER
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J) M.A. 378 of 2025 filed by the applicants seeking permission to join together to file a single O.A. is allowed.
2. Applicants have filed this Original Application seeking the following relief:-
"to set aside the Direct recruitment notification to the post of Deputy Tahsildar bearing No.5882/Estt/A2/2023 dated 28.05.2025 issued by the respondent only to the extent it does not provide the one-time age relaxation that was granted to the Group - C category posts vide G.O.Ms. No. 50 dated 29.07.2022.
ii) Consequently, direct the Respondent to issue a Corrigendum to the said notification granting one-time age relaxation as per G.O.Ms. No. 50 dated 29.07.2022.
and may pass such other Order or Direction that necessary to meet the ends of justice.."
3. When the matter was taken up for admission hearing, the counsel representing applicants' counsel sought a pass over. Subsequently when the matter was called again, submission was made that Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, Ld. Counsel takes advance notice on behalf of the respondents. The Counsel representing Mr. R. Syed Mustafa has furnished a copy of order dated 27.03.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. 291 of 2025 in which similar issue was involved and submits that since that OA has been dismissed, this OA also deserves to be dismissed.
4 of 8
4. On perusal of the said order dated 27.03.2025, it is observed that applicant therein had approached this Tribunal as she could not apply on-line due to over age and therefore sought a direction to the respondents to accept her offline application and to consider her representation to that effect. This Tribunal vide the aforesaid order held that plea of the applicant to permit her to appear for the examination cannot be accepted as she is overaged and is above the relaxation criteria as mentioned in the notification dated 11.05.2025 and accordingly dismissed the OA as being devoid of merits.
5. In the case on hand also, plea of the applicants is that they have submitted their application manually through offline mode for the post of Deputy Tahsildar pursuant to the Notification No.5882/Rev.Estt/A2/2023 dated 28.05.2025 of the DR & DM, Puducherry, since they are overaged as per the age limit prescribed in the notification. They also state that they belong to various reserved categories viz., SC Category, OBC non-creamy layer, EWS category, EBC category and MBC category. The Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Tahsildar prescribes that the age of the candidate shall not exceed 32 years. The Recruitment Rules permit giving age relaxation for the reserved and special category of persons in accordance with the order issued by the Government from time to time. The Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry has granted relaxation of upper age limit by two years over and the above the upper age limit prescribed in the Relevant Recruitment Rules, as a one-time measure, for direct recruitment of all Group 'C' posts to be notified by the Departments concerned and this relaxation is applicable for the first direct 5 of 8 recruitment to be made for each cadre by the Departments concerned after the issue of the G.O. or it will be in force until the recruitment year 2023-24, whichever is earlier. The age relaxation available to various categories shall also be applicable over and above the age relaxation.
6. The applicants further state that the Respondent had issued Recruitment Notification No.5882/Rev.Estt/A2/2023 dated 28.05.2025 stating that Applications are invited from the eligible Indian Citizens who are Natives/ Residents of the Union Territory of Puducherry for the Written Competitive Examination to be held for Direct Recruitment to the post of Deputy Tahsildar (Group B Non-Gazette, Non- Gazetted, Non-Ministerial) in the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Puducherry. It is clear from above that the delay in making direct recruitment is purely on the part of the respondent. Such delay has led to applicants becoming overaged, making them ineligible to apply under the impugned notification. The applicants are all fully qualified but could not apply for the post of Deputy Tahsildar, except for want of age. The action of the respondent in not granting the one-time age relaxation without considering that the direct recruitment was delayed totally due the mistake of the Respondent, is patently illegal, arbitrary and liable to be interfered. Hence, they have filed the instant O.A. seeking the aforesaid relief.
7. In the light of the above pleadings and the submissions of the counsel for respondents, it is clear that the issue herein is similar to the issue involved in O.A. 291 of 2025 which has already been dismissed by this Tribunal.
6 of 8
8. Moreover, it is settled law that prescribing of any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which any relaxation can be given to the said age limit are essentially matters of policy which lies within the sphere of legislature or executive.
9. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors vs. Shivbachan Rai reported in (2001) 9 SCC 356 has held that "the prescribing of any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which any relaxation can be given to the said age limit are essentially matters of policy. It was further held that it was open for the Government while framing the rules to prescribe such age limits or to prescribe the extent to which any relaxation can be given.".
10. Further, in the case of Mallikarjuna Rao vs. State of A.P. reported in (1990) 2 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "It is neither legal nor proper for the High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals to issue directions or advisory- sermons to the executive in respect of the sphere which is exclusively within the domain of the executive under the constitution.".
11. Further, in the case of Asif Hameed & Ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. reported in [1989] Supp. 2 SCC 364, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that -
"When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with Law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the 7 of 8 powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature of executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers.".
12. In the case of Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani and Ors reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "The court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open to the court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates.".
13. In the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs Saifudaullah Khan & Ors reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that-
"It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of re- laxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the adver- tisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the adver- tisement.".
8 of 8
14. In the case of Ankita Thakur & Ors. vs. The H.P. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that-
"Impugned relaxation being after the last date fixed for receipt of the application is in teeth of the law settled by this Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors [(2013) 11 SCC 58]. That apart, in absence of power reserved in the advertisement to relax the eligibility criteria, and there being no publicity of such relaxation, relaxation of the eligibility criteria falls foul of the law laid down by this Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan [(2011) 12 SCC 85] and Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of U.P [(2019) 17 SCC 373].
15. Thus, the legal position clearly emerging from the above referred catena of judgements is that it is not for Courts to give directions to the Government either to change its policy or to give one-time age relaxation, as prayed for.
16. In view of the foregoing discussions and that similar OA has already been dismissed by this Tribunal, this OA also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)
03.07.2025
asvs.