CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated, 2^nd day of January, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON’BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)

&

HON’BLE MR.SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)

Mrs. BiradaMadhavi, D.No. 10.08.108, Raja Babu Colony, Kanakalapeta Yanam 533 464 Puducherry .... Applicant By Advocate M/s.M.Ravi Vs

1.Government of Puducherry, Represented by Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chief Secretariat Puducherry Union Territory

2.The Under Secretary to Government, (School Education), Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

3. The Employment Officer, National Employment Service,

Puducherry.

4.The Director of School Education,

Puducherry 605 005. .... Respondents

By Advocate Mr.R.Syed Mustafa

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member(A))

The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“To call for the records on the file of the Second Respondent relating to Letter No. 1706/DSE/Estt.II/A/2016 dated 25.02.2016 and Proceedings No. 2492/ EE/ Submn/2017 dated 29.05.2017 issued by the Third Respondent and to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the First Respondent to grant relaxation of upper age limit of 30 years in the case of the Applicant, in the light of G.O.Ms.No. 98/83 LAB, Labour Department, dated 24.08.1982 for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu) and appoint her as such in the Recruitment for the year 2015 under the General Category, with all consequential benefits and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and thus render Justice.”

2. When the matter came up for hearing today, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the present OA pertains to the recruitment of TGT for the year 2015 and subsequent recruitments have been taken place in the years 2015 & 2023. Further, the main relief sought by the applicant is for age relaxation which cannot be granted by this Tribunal. The respondents invited our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P.No.13651 of 2016 and W.M.P. No.11944 of 2016 (D.Vijaya Rani) not acceeding the prayer of Age Relaxation. We also observe that the applicant is not covered by any of the exceptions for age relaxation policy of Court of Puducherry. Learned counsel for the applicant is present and he also agrees with the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. In view of the above position, nothing survives in the OA for adjudication and accordingly, the OA is closed. No order as to costs.

(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)

MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)

02.01.2025

MT