The court held that age relaxation in recruitment must be uniformly exercised and procedural fairness should guide the Tribunal's decision-making on such applications.

JUDGMENT

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--Issue notice.

1.1. Mr. Kaushal Gautam accepts service on behalf of the contesting respondent i.e., respondent no.2-All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (AIIMS).

2. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself, based on the record presently available with the court.

3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.12.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') in O.A.No.2748/2021.

3.1. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal to seek a direction of the kind that would compel respondent no.2/AIIMS to exercise its power of age relaxation, as conferred upon it under Recruitment Rules, 2015.

3.2. The case set up by the petitioner before the Tribunal was that, insofar as the Nursing Officer Recruitment Common Eligibility Test [in short "NORCET"] 2020 was concerned, respondent no.2/AIIMS had exercised the power of age relaxation vested in it not only vis-a'-vis Central Government employees but also qua employees of AIIMS, New Delhi and other autonomous and statutory corporations.

3.3. The petitioner claimed that to her detriment and those similarly circumstanced, the power of age relaxation was not exercised by respondent no.2/AIIMS, insofar as NORCET 2021 was concerned.

3.4. The record also shows that the relevant recruitment notice issued by respondent no.2/AIIMS on 16.10.2021 for the post of Nursing Officer (Group `B'), invited applications not only for the posts available with it [i.e., AIIMS, New Delhi] but also for 17 other AIIMS institutes and 4 Central Government hospitals.

3.5. Pertinently, by the time, the action[i.e., O.A. No.2748/2021] instituted in the Tribunal came up for hearing, as noticed in the impugned order, the petitioner had received her admit card and taken the exam, which was held pursuant to 16.10.2021 recruitment notice.

3.6. To be noted, apart from the petitioner, there were five other applicants who had joined the petitioner in moving the Tribunal by way of the aforementioned O.A.

3.7. The Tribunal, thus, without examining the merits of the case, dismissed the O.A., via the impugned order, on the ground that the petitioner along with the other applicants, had already appeared in the subject examination.

4. Mr. Gyanant Singh, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, informs us that once the 16.10.2021 recruitment notice was issued, the petitioner had made a representation to respondent no.2/AIIMS via its Director on 22.10.2021, and since, the petitioner had received the admit card, she chose to take the subject examination.

4.1. Mr. Singh also says that the petitioner's representation dated 22.10.2021 has still not been disposed of by respondent no.2/AIIMS.

4.2. On being queried, Mr Singh concedes that, although, there is an assertion in paragraph 4.3 of the O.A. that a representation was made concerning age relaxation vis-a'-vis the relevant recruitment notice, the details such as the date, etcetera is not mentioned.

4.3. Mr. Singh also concedes that a copy of the above-mentioned representation was not filed with the O.A. However, Mr Singh has drawn our attention to page 127 of the case file, wherein a copy of the said representation is appended.

4.4. We have also queried Mr Gautam as to how the petitioner was issued an admit card and allowed to take the subject examination if, even according to the petitioner, she was over age.

4.5. Mr. Gautam says that since some of the concerned institutes had exercised the power of age relaxation, the petitioner was allowed to take the subject exam.

4.6. On the other hand, Mr Singh says that, even though the petitioner has obtained a rank, which is, high up in the merit list, she has not been granted access to the portal created by respondent