IMPORTANT POINT
A candidate may avail of the maximum relaxation in any one category once, unless the rules expressly permit a duplication or multiplication thereof.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The short question involved in this case is whether an applicant having taken advantage of a concession as regards any eligibility criterion in one category may again avail of the same concession in another category to be, in effect, the double or multiple beneficiary of the concession by virtue of such candidate belonging to two or more of the categories entitled to obtain the concession.

2. The issue is of some importance and despite the considerable industry on the part of Counsel appearing on either side, no direct precedent on the issue has been brought.

3. It must be recorded at the outset that this petition has been received since the Central Administrative Tribunal was not available as is recorded in the interim order of August 12, 2022, and that despite the petitioner's best efforts, the petition carried to the Tribunal could not be listed since August 5, 2022 while the selection process was being continued upon the petitioner being found ineligible to be considered for the post.

4. The petitioner applied for the post of Professor-cum-Principal in the College of Nursing of the North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences, Shillong. In terms of the governing rules and the invitation to apply, the age limit for recruitment was 45 years. Indeed, the exact words are as follows:-

'Not exceeding 45 years (Relaxable by 5 years for Government Servants in accordance with the instruction of Central Govt.)'

5. Since the other eligibility criteria to be entitled to apply for the post are irrelevant for the present purpose, it is only the age criterion which is taken into consideration.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to a scheduled tribe. The petitioner is also in government service. At the time that the petitioner applied for the position, she was about 54 years of age and her application was rejected on the ground that she was overaged by about four years or so. It is against the rejection of her application, that the petitioner is before this Court.

7. The petitioner relies on an office memorandum of March 27, 2012 issued by the government of India that claims to be a consolidation of the orders on relaxation in upper age-limit allowed to various categories of Central government servants. It is important to notice the exact words of the relevant memorandum which is followed by a detailed table running into the next six pages:

'Consolidated orders on relaxation in upper age limit allowed to various categories of government servants.

'The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this Department's Notification No.2/101 /72-Estt(D) dated 07.03.1974 and to say that since then a number of instructions allowing relaxation in upper age to Central government servants for recruitment to various categories of posts under the Central government have been issued. For the facility of reference and guidance, the content of the important/relevant O.M.'s/orders on the subject have been consolidated. The number and date of original O.M.'s have been referred under each category for easy reference to the context.'

8. The petitioner relies on the first entry in the table pertaining to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The memorandum refers to a notification of March 7, 1974 and provides that in all posts filled by direct recruitment, there would be an age relaxation to the extent of five years for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe applicants.

9. The petitioner next places Rule 10 of the Recruitment Rules for Nursing Faculty and Other Posts of NEIGRIHMS, 2004. The relevant provision reads as follows:

'10. Reservation of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe - Nothing in these Rules shall affect reservation, relaxation of age limit and other concessions required to be provided for Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes and other special categories of person in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time in this regard.'

10. The petitioner asser