JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. - W.P.(C) No.9539/2021 (preferred by 08 petitioners); W.P.(C) No.9378/2021 (preferred by 24 petitioners), W.P.(C) No.9671/2021 (preferred by 01 petitioner) and W.P.(C) No.9806/2021 (preferred by 01 petitioner) challenge the common order dated March 25, 2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the `Tribunal') in OA No.255/2021, O.A. No.256/2021 and O.A. No.305/2021, whereby the OAs preferred by the petitioners who were working on contractual basis as Assistant Public Prosecutor in Govt. of NCT of Delhi, seeking age relaxation for regular appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, were disposed of as under:

"11. We, therefore, dispose of the OAs directing that the Government of NCT of Delhi shall make its stand very clear as to

(a) whether it wants the UPSC to proceed with the selection of candidates for the posts of APP in accordance with the recruitment rules, as they stand now;

(b) or whether it proposes to amend the rules by acceding to the request of the applicants and thereby wants to discontinue the ongoing process.

(c) Either way, it shall be decided by the respondents within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law."

2. In brief, vide advertisement No.02/2021 published on January, 2021, the Union Public Service Commission (`UPSC', in short) invited applications inter-alia for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), Directorate of Prosecution, Home Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The maximum age limit for the post in question was 30 years for General Category with the provision of age relaxations of 05 years for SC/ST and 03 years for OBC.

Petitioners, who were appointed in between 2015 till 2020 and were working on contractual basis as APP in the Directorate of Prosecution, Home Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi became overaged and were unable to apply in response to the said advertisement No.02/2021, since no regular selection process for APP took place in between 2015 and 2021.

The O.A. Nos. 255/2021, 256/2021 and 305/2021 were accordingly preferred by the petitioners before the Tribunal seeking age relaxation which were disposed of vide common order dated March 25, 2021 as noticed above. UPSC decided to proceed and issued Notification dated August 05, 2021, whereby examination date was scheduled for September 19, 2021.

3. (i) In the aforesaid background, W.P.(C) No.9378/2021, W.P.(C) No.9539/2021 and W.P.(C) Nos. 9671/2021 have been preferred by the petitioners, challenging the common order dated March 25, 2021 passed in O.A. Nos.255/2021 (Arun Kumar Mavi & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 256/2021 ((Surender Kumar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.) and 305/2021 (Dishank Dhawan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.).

(ii) Neema Noor Mohd. who was a party in O.A. No.256/2021 but was not impleaded as a petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9378/2021 filed an intervener application CM. APPL. No.31669/2021, which was allowed vide order dated September 15, 2021.

(iii) Also, an impleadment application (CM. APPL. No.31036/2021) was preferred on behalf of Mr.Aman Gaurav which was also allowed vide order dated September 13, 2021 in W.P.(C) No.9378/2021.

(iv) An impleadment application (CM. APPL. No.33681/2021) preferred in W.P.(C) No.9671/2021 by one Mr.Shitize Rao, who appeared in the said exam, was allowed vide order dated July 06, 2023. The applicant opposed the prayer for grant of age relaxation sought by the petitioners in the respective writ petitions.

(v) Further, W.P.(C) No.9806/2021 stands preferred by Ms.Annu Yadav, who was also working as contractual APP. She initially preferred an impleadment application before the Tribunal in O.A. No.256/2021 but since the same could not be listed before the Tribunal, she preferred W.P.(C) No.1856/2021, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal vide order dated February