$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 04.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 6184/2024 MS KIRAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar and Mr.

Ayush Tomar, Advocates.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC GNCTD Services with Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Aliza Alam, Ms. Vishruti Pandey, Mr. Sachin Garg, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN J U D G M E N T (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Petition, filed by the Petitioner, assails the correctness of the order dated 01.11.2023 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] in O.A. No. 1188/2016, whereby the Original Application filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed.

2. The principal grievance of the Petitioner arises out of the rejection of her candidature for appointment to the post of Librarian under the Directorate of Education [‘DoE’], Government of NCT of Delhi [‘GNCTD’], on the ground that she was overage in terms of the prescribed eligibility criteria.

3. In substance, the Petitioner claims entitlement to a general age relaxation of ten years on account of a circular/Office Memorandum dated 01.11.1980 issued under Rule 43 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. The record reveals that the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board [‘DSSSB’] issued recruitment advertisements in the years 2010 and 2013 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Librarian under the DoE. Pursuant thereto, a Common Recruitment Examination was conducted in the year 2015.

5. The Petitioner participated in the said selection process and secured marks which, according to her, were above the prescribed cut- off for candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. However, her candidature was not considered for appointment on account of her being overage in terms of the applicable Recruitment Rules and the conditions stipulated in the advertisements.

6. Aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1188/2016. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and the applicable legal position, dismissed the Original Application, primarily relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Raj Bala & Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 7240/2017 and connected matters, as well as Sachin Gupta v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board., (152) 2008 DLT 378, culminating in the Impugned Order.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is contended that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of ten years’ age relaxation available to women candidates in terms of a circular/notification dated 01.11.1980 issued by the Administrator under Rule 43 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

8. It is further contended that the post of Librarian having been declared as a teaching post by virtue of an order dated 21.01.2011 issued by the DoE, the benefit of age relaxation applicable to teaching posts ought to have been extended to the Petitioner.

9. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of this Court in Asha v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 1035/2014, and Meenakshi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 3521/2017, to contend that women candidates applying for the post of Librarian are entitled to the said relaxation.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the issue raised in the present Petition stands conclusively settled by the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Raj Bala (Supra) and Sachin Gupta (Supra), which have categorically held that the notification dated 01.11.1980 does not govern r