The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled that UPSC could not grant age relaxation for a recruitment process, as no explicit provisions for such concessions existed in the Recruitment Rules.

ORDER

Per : Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

Heard the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record written notes of argument.

3. The Applicant has filed this OA seeking following reliefs:

“8.A Quash and set aside the Communication/Order dt. 12/10/2020 passed by Respondent No.2 thereby rejecting the request of the relaxing age limit for the Applicant from 30 to 32 years to facilitate her to appear for the post of Asst. Director in the Ministry of Tourism.

8.B Direct the Respondent No.2 to accept the application form of the Applicant via online/offline mode by granting her one-time age limit relaxation to appear for the exam for the post of Asst. Director.

8.C Any other reliefs deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.

8.D Allow the O.A. with Cost”.

4. Facts lie in narrow compass.

4.1. The applicant is working as Tourist Information Officer, India Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India at Aurangabad office. On 12th December, 2019, Ministry of Tourism issued a letter to Respondent No.2 in regard to the recruitment of the post of Assistant Director along with Proforma for Requisition, Occurrence of Vacancy and the copy of the amended Recruitment Rules published in the Gazette on 14th August, 2019. The said letter says that Respondent No.1 has sent proposal to fill one post of Assistant Director in the year 2012. However, the UPSC – Respondent No.2 returned that proposal on the ground that the copy of the Recruitment Rules was not sent along with gazette copy of the requisition. After a hiatus of nine long years, the respondent no.1 published the amended Recruitment Rules in the gazette on 14th August, 2019 and sent the requisition to the respondent No.2 - UPSC along with copy of the amended Recruitment Rules. Respondent No.1 explained the delay of nine years stating that it could not trace the copy of the Recruitment Rules. Despite the requisition having been sent by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 on 12th December, 2019, respondent no.2 did not advertise those posts for almost one year. The applicant being the employee of Tourism Department of Central Government and being a candidate of OBC category, he is eligible to get the relaxation of eight years as per the rules formulated by respondent no.1 and, therefore, she was eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Director till 17th May, 2020. 4.2 It is further averred in the application that on 14th May, 2020, the applicant made a representation to respondent no.1 mentioning that the department did not advertise the posts of Assistant Director since last ten years resulting in deprivation of her opportunity of getting selected for that post. Therefore, she sought one time age limit concession to apply for the said post. Respondent no.1 - Tourism Ministry made a communication to the respondent no.2 to consider the issue of one-time age limit concession/relaxation from 30 to 32 years to the candidates working in the Tourism Department. Respondent no.2 turned down the proposal of the respondent no.1 in respect of one-time age limit concession to the candidates of Tourism Department on the ground that the Recruitment Rules should be reviewed once in five year and such changes/modifications should be incorporated in the Recruitment Rules and unless there is amendment in the rules, such benefits cannot be granted to these candidates. It is further alleged that UPSC filled 13 posts of Assistant Director. Respondent no.2 did not accede to the proposal of respondent no.1 in regard to the concession in the age limit to the candidates of the department.

4.3. Being aggrieved by this communication, the applicant filed Writ Petition in Bombay H