CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH O.A. No.310/01354 of 2025 DATED MONDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE CORAM :

HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)

HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)

N. Vijayakanth, Son of Natarajan, Aged about 39 years, No.42, Main Road, Thennangudy, Sellur, Karaikal - 609 607. ..........Applicant (Advocate: M/s. R. Saravanan)

Vs.

1. Union of India Represented by its Secretary (Home)

Chief Secretariat, Puducherry- 605 001;

2. The Special officer (Police)

Police Department, Puducherry 605001. …...Respondents (Advocate: Mr. .R. Syed Mustafa)

O R A L O R D E R (Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)

Applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following relief:-

"Call for records relating to the impugned notification dated 12.08.2025 bearing Ref. No.1-2/A2/Estt.I(A)/POL/2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same only in so far as fixing of upper age limit 27 years; and ii. Consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the candidature of the applicant herein by granting relaxation of upper age limit in the direct recruitment to the post of Sub- Inspector of Police (Group 'B', Non-Gazetted- Non-ministerial) in the Police Department, Puducherry notified vide notification

12.08.2025 bearing Ref. No.1-2/A2/Estt.I(A)/POL/2024;

iii. Award costs;

iv. And pass such further or other orders and thus render justice."

2. When the matter was taken up for admission hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant possesses educational qualification of B.Sc. (Bioinformatics), is aged about 36 years 01 month 25 days as on 08.11.2022 and belongs to MBC community. The 2^rd respondent issued notification dated 12.08.2025 calling applications for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Group 'B' Non- Gazetted, Non Ministerial) in the Police Department. Puducherry to be filled up by direct recruitment. Age limit prescribed was not exceeding 27 years as on 12.09.2025 (relaxable in respect of OBC, SC & ST). The applicant could not apply online as he was over aged. The applicant had submitted representation dated 24.09.2025 requesting for age relaxation and to permit him to participate in the selection process by accepting his offline application. Since there is no response, he has filed this OA seeking to set aside the notification dated 12.08.2025 in so far as fixing of upper age limit 27 years.

3. The counsel representing Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, Ld. Counsel of the respondents submitted that the issue involved in this OA is similar to the issue involved in O.A. No. 681 of 2025 and O.A. No. 291 of 2025 which have already been dismissed, and therefore, this OA also deserves to be dismissed.

4. From the pleadings, it is clear that the issue involved in this OA relates to relaxation of age and is similar to the issue involved in O.A. No. 681 of 2025 and O.A. 291 of 2025 which have already been dismissed by this Tribunal.

5. It is settled law that prescribing of any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which any relaxation can be given to the said age limit are essentially matters of policy which lies within the sphere of legislature or executive.

6. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors vs. Shivbachan Rai reported in (2001) 9 SCC 356 has held that- “the prescribing of any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which any relaxation can be given to the said age limit are essentially matters of policy. It was further held that it was open for the Government while framing the rules to prescribe such age limits or to prescribe the extent to which any relaxation can be given.".

7. Further, in the case of Mallikarjuna Rao vs. State of A.P. reported in (1990)

2 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that -

"It is neither legal nor proper for the High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals to issue directions or advisory sermons to the executive in respect of the sphere which is exclusively