IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.02.2026 Vikky Devi ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present: Mr. Sant Lal Barwala, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. N.P.S. Hira, DAG, Punjab.

*****

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.(Oral)

1 In the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Special Educator Teacher (Primary Cadre) by granting age relaxation in terms of Sub-Clause (iii) of Clause 5 of the advertisement dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondent No.3, being Government employee.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Children with Special Needs Teacher (CWSN) on contract basis under the Government of Delhi. The respondent No.3 issued an advertisement dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) inviting online applications for recruitment to the post of Special Educator Teacher (Primary Cadre) in the Education Department of the State of Punjab. A copy of the same is attached as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. A perusal of the advertisement dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) would show that for the General Category in regard to age, a candidate is eligible for consideration for appointment, if his/her age is between 18 to 37 years as on 01.01.2025. There is no dispute that the petitioner, at the time of issuance of the advertisement dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), was of 38 years & 04 months and 27 days. The petitioner applied for appointment in pursuance to the abovesaid advertisement dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner duly participated in the written examination held on 16.11.2025 and was declared successful. The petitioner was called for interview and scrutiny of documents on 08.12.2025. The petitioner duly participated in the interview and appeared before the Committee for the purpose of scrutiny of documents. Thereafter, provisional selection list was issued on 19.12.2025 (Annexure P-8) by the respondents. In the abovesaid provisional selection list, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned. The petitioner approached the respondents in regard as to why the name of the petitioner did not figure in the provisional selection list. It was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the case of petitioner was not considered and was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was over age and that the certificate submitted by her was not as per the proper format. Aggrieved against the action of respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Special Educator Teacher (Primary Cadre), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in light of Sub-Clause (iii) of Clause 5 of the advertisement dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), the upper age limit of the employees of the other State/Central Governments was upto 45 years as on 01.01.2025 and as the petitioner was working as a Teacher on contract basis under the Government of Delhi, so she is entitled to be considered taking into consideration the upper age limit i.e. upto 45 years. Learned counsel further submits that the letter issued by the respondent-State dated 12.01.2021 (Annexure R-1) cannot taken into consideration as it was never referred in the advertisement dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure P-2).

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State submits that the State of Punjab has issued letter dated 12.01.2021 (Annexure R-1), whereby, it has been mentioned that relaxation of upper age limit can only be given in the case of employees working on contract basis, for applying against the direct recruitment posts to employees working in various departments of the State of Punjab. A copy of the same is attached with the writ petition as Annexure R-1. Learned counsel submits that certi