JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The petitioner-authorities have challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal set aside an order dated February 14, 2021 issued by the Director of Health Services, Andaman and Nicobar Administration whereby the petitioners refused to give double age relaxation to the respondent, both as a departmental candidate with 3 years continuous service in the Central Government and as a candidate falling under the Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the respondent is working as Health Worker (Male). The Health Department of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration had published a revised vacancy notice on June 21, 2019 and a newspaper publication was made to that effect on June 23, 2019. The age limit for candidates were stipulated therein. The said notice provided that for the post of Health Educator, for which the respondent applied, the age relaxation shall be allowed in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government of India and the Andaman and Nicobar Administration from time to time.

3. The governing provisions as to relaxation of age was the Office Memorandum dated March 27, 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training), bearing No.15012/2/2010-Estt.(D). In the said O.M., for the category “Other Backward Classes”, the extent of age concession was provided as 3 years under Sl.No.2 whereas under Sl.No.12, age relaxation in case of Departmental Candidates with 3 years’ continuous service in Central Government for appointment to Group-A and Group-B posts, under which the petitioner comes, filled through the UPSC (other than those filled on the basis of comparative examination) and posts which are exempted from the purview of UPSC (where the recruitment is made by the organisations themselves), the age relaxation was 5 years. Such relaxation was for posts which are in the same line or allied cadres and where a relationship could be established that the service rendered in a particular post will be useful for efficient discharge of the duties of post, which criterion otherwise applies to the respondent.

4. There is no dispute between the parties as to the respondent being otherwise eligible for the said post, except the fact that the respondent was over-aged at the time when he applied for such post in pursuance of the said vacancy notice, even after grant of 5 years’ extension under the category of Department Candidate having 3 years’ experience. However, if an additional 3 years’ extension was given under the head of OBC as well, he would come within the eligible age.

5. The respondent claims that he is entitled to a combination of the age relaxation available to him under the OBC category and under the category of department candidate with 3 years’ continuous service in Central Government. Under the former, the respondent is entitled to 3 years’ age relaxation whereas under the latter, to 5 years age’ relaxation.

6. The petitioner-authorities, however, by the order impugned before the Tribunal, chose to grant 5 years relaxation to the respondent under the category of departmental candidate with 3 years continuous service but refrained from granting the benefit of further 3 years under the OBC category.

7. As per the interpretation of the petitioner-authorities, the concerned OM does not permit a combination of any two categories, unless specifically provided for.

8. The respondent preferred a challenge against such decision before the Tribunal and succeeded, against which the present challenge has been preferred by the petitioner-authorities.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the OM governing the vacancy in question does not permit of clubbing of age relaxation granted under two separate categories. In the absence of any such provision in the O.M, it is argued that the respondent is not entitled to such benefit. It is argued