The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory and legislative character of the Recruitment Rules, the employer's prerogative to decide the age limit and academic suitability of candidates, and the limited applicability of previous judgments to specific contexts.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant Board") seeks to impugned the legality of the judgment and order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 3104 of 2016 whereby the High Court has affirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which directed the Appellant Board to consider the candidature of the Respondent for selection and appointment as Teacher (Primary) in MCD Schools by giving him age relaxation upto 32 years, provided he does not exceed the upper age limit of 32 years as on the cutoff date, i.e. 15.01.2010 and he fulfills all other eligibility conditions as stipulated in the advertisement.

4. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal can be summarized as under:

5. The Appellant Board has been incorporated with the purpose of recruiting competent individuals by conducting written tests, personal interviews etc. for the user departments. In the present case, on the request of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), an advertisement for the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD Schools, along with other posts, was published on 07.11.2009 by the Appellant Board. As per the advertisement, the age limit for candidates for the post of Teacher (Primary) was 20-27 years and relaxations were applicable as per rules. Subsequently, the Appellant Board issued addendum of advertisement on 13.09.2011 informing that pursuant to the directions of the CAT dated 20.07.2010, the Recruitment Rules for the said post have been modified by the MCD and the cutoff date was stated to be 15.01.2010 for calculating the age limit. The Appellant Board prepared the Marks List of 20,014 candidates and uploaded the same on its website on 08.07.2014. On the basis of the Marks List, the MCD, being the user department, approved the checklist as per Recruitment Rules and classified all cases as provisionally selected. Final result was published in public domain on 05.12.2014, in respect of candidates being selected, rejected or whose candidature was kept pending while mentioning the reason thereof. The Appellant Board also published the names of ineligible candidates wherein the Respondent's name also appeared, declaring him as not eligible and the reason for his ineligibility was mentioned as over age.

6. In the instant case, the Respondent claimed eligibility before the CAT by filing an Original Application for the post of Teacher (Primary) in the MCD Schools challenging the reject notice dated 05.12.2014. The Respondent herein sought relief from the Courts below relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sachin Gupta vs. DSSSB and Others, decided on 28.08.2008. Following the said judgment, the CAT as well as the High Court directed the Appellant Board to give age relaxation to the Respondent. The Appellant Board, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the High Court, is before us in this appeal.

7. If one goes strictly by the eligibility conditions stipulated in the advertisement or the Rules for recruitment to the post of Teacher (Primary), it cannot be disputed that the upper age limit for consideration to appointment to the aforesaid post is 27 years. It means that any person who has attained the age of 27 years renders himself/herself ineligible to apply for the said post. Notwithstanding the same, benefit of age relaxation was given to the Respondent herein relying upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sachin Gupta's case. Therefore, the first question for consideration is as to whether that judgment can be made applicable in the case of the Respondent as well.

8. A copy of the said judgment dated 28.08.2008 passed in Sachin Gupta's case was produced before us and we have gone through it. On going through this judgment, one finds that, in that case, challenge was made to the Notification dated 13.07.2007, vide which Recrui