Age relaxation in public recruitment is not a fundamental or inherent right and can only be granted if the specific recruitment rules of the employing department explicitly and legally provide for such a concession.

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)

Challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.165 of 2018 dated 30.10.2024, the petitioners are before this Court with the present Writ Petition.

2 Learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, the petitioners, would submit that the petitioner was engaged as Cook in 2007 as a daily wage worker (Masalachi/Cook) in the Jawans’ the Mess, Dakshin Bharat Area Signal Company, Chennai. His engagement was purely and temporarily funded by Jawans’ contributions and not against any sanctioned civilian post.

2.1 In 2017, a recruitment notification was issued prescribing an age limit of 18-25 years for the post of Cook, for which the respondent also applied and he was not considered due to his over age and subsequently that notification was rescinded and in April 2023, a fresh notification was issued and the respondent again applied under this notification. The respondent filed two Original Applications before the Tribunal in O.A.No.165 of 2018 seeking age relaxation and O.A.No.735 of 2022 seeking regularization. The Tribunal, vide common order dated 30.10.2024, rejected regularization, but granted age relaxation, whereby the petitioners were directed to consider the respondent’s candidature in 2023 recruitment.

2.2 The learned Additional Solicitor General would further contend that admittedly the respondent was not paid either by the Government or by the Department and he was engaged as daily wage. The Tribunal conflated daily wage workers with casual labourers having temporary status, whereby, rewrote the recruitment rules and indirectly conferred the benefits, which are barred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even though the Tribunal rightly rejected the request of regularization, erroneously granted age relaxation, which could not be done and hence the order of the Tribunal granting age relaxation is liable to be set aside.

3 The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent was engaged in the year 2007, when he was 23 years old, as Cook in the Mess and he was working as Casual Labour. The respondent after having served for 9 years, felt encouraged to apply for the notification issue by the petitioners for the very same post of Cook, but, he was informed that his application might not be considered due to his over age. Therefore the respondent approached the Tribunal seeking age relaxation and later filed another application seeking regularization. Further the petitioner Department issued Service Certificate to the respondent, whereby the respondent’s service was certified by the competent authority. The Tribunal, after considering the case of the respondent and the facts, even though rejected the prayer of regularization, granted the relief of age relaxation. Further after approaching the Tribunal, the respondent was terminated from service, which is illegal. Therefore the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

4 Heard the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

5 It is the main contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioners that the petitioner was not employed as casual labour and he was engaged only as daily wage and he was paid only from Jawan’s fund and hence his application could not be considered.

6 Per contra, it is the contention of the respondent that the respondent served for 9 years as Cook in the Mess and when the petitioners issued notification for the very same post, he applied. The respondent joined duty at the age of 23 years and at the time of notification, he lost his age and hence he approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal rightly granted age relaxation to the respondent.

7 It is an admitted fact that the respondent was paid only from the Jawan’s fund and not either from the Government fund or from the Department fund. Further the respondent was engaged