IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1265 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15790 of 2024 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1265 of 2025 ==========================================================

VANKAR GIRISHKUMAR HIRABHAI & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS SHACHI G MATHUR(3069) for the Appellant(s) No.

1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 27/11/2025

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sachi G.

Mathur for the appellant.

2. By this appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated

03.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge whereby prayer of the appellants to participate in the recruitment process by relaxing the age limit is rejected on the ground that the appellants failed to show any exception to interfere with administrative directions and policy matters while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants original petitioners have made a prayer in Special Civil Application to direct the respondents to give relaxation in upper age limit and grant age relaxation upto four years in the recruitment process of the Advertisement Nos. 3 of 2024 and 4 of 2024 issued by the respondent no.3 Gujarat State Primary Education Selection Committee for the post of Vidhya Sahayak in Standard 1 to 5 and Standard 6 to 8. It was also prayed to quash and set aside the recruitment process.

4. So far as prayer for granting relaxation in age limit by 4 years, it was submitted by the learned advocate Ms. Sachi Mathur appearing for the appellants original petitioners that respondent no.3 is required to conduct the recruitment process to the post of Vidhya Sahayak as per the calendar of 10 years and from 2017 to 2022, no recruitment was made and thereafter only in the year 2022, recruitment process was undertaken for only 500 posts and thereafter recruitment process for 12,000 vacancies were undertaken in the year 2024. It was therefore, submitted that the age limit ought to have been relaxed to enable the appellants to participate in recruitment process of the year 2024.

5. It was further submitted that decision in case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Sajal Kumar Roy and others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 671, referred to and relied upon by the learned Single Judge, as relied on behalf of the respondents, could not have been applied to the post of Vidhya Sahayak in Standard 1 to 5 and Standard 6 to 8 as the said decision is pertaining to recruitment of the clerical staff and not the teaching staff.

6. It was submitted that the respondents are also required to relax the age limit as the age limit for appearing in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) examination was extended, as passing of TAT examination is an eligibility criteria to participate in recruitment of Vidhya Sahayak.

7. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant, it appears that the learned Single Judge after considering the facts of the case and decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others (supra) has come to the conclusion that power of relaxation can be exercised in public interest only in a given case. Reliance was also made to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (1997) 6 SCC 614 wherein it is held that powers of discretion of relaxation of age by the authority can be exercised in a given case in public interest only if the suitable candidates are not available for the post a