The State Government must consider its overriding power under the Relaxation Rules 2003 when deciding age relaxation claims, and failure to do so renders the rejection order unsustainable.

Judgment :

Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.

1. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2025, passed by the Secretary, Department of Medical Health & Medical Education, Government of Uttarakhand, whereby the representation of the petitioner for grant of relaxation in upper age limit for participation in the selection process for the selection of Medical Officers in the Uttarakhand Medical and Health Services has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of Clause 8 of the advertisement dated 13.11.2025, whereby upper age limit of 42 has been prescribed for participation in the selection process to the extent there is no provision for relaxation of age.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is working since 19^th July 2024, as Medical Officer, on contractual basis in pursuance of appointment order of the even date. The initial period of contract was one year and it was subsequently extended on 11.03.2025 upto 28.02.2026, or till regular appointment is made. On 13.11.2025 the Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board issued an advertisement for holding selection on the post of Medical Officer (Ordinary Grade.. The said advertisement was in respect of 287 vacant posts including back log vacancies through direct recruitment in the Uttarakhand Provincial Medical and Health Service Cadre. The petitioner who had worked on contractual basis for more than 01 year 03 months was overage on the prescribed cutoff date. On 27.11.2025, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand for providing relaxation in upper age limit to the petitioner to enable him to participate in the selection process. The petitioner claimed relaxation on the ground that he had been working on contractual basis as Medical Officer since July 2024, and like him there were several other persons who were also working on contractual basis and, consequently, the petitioner as well as other such persons should be granted relaxation in the upper age limit to enable them to participate in the selection process. The further case of the petitioner is that power in this regard is vested in the State under the Uttarakhand Public Service (Relaxation in Age Limit for Recruitment. Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Relaxation Rules 2003”), notified on 18.02.2003. Rule 3 thereof enables the State Government to grant relaxation in upper age limit for appointment to public services in respect of any particular candidate or class of candidates. As the representation of the petitioner remained pending while, on the other hand, the selection process was in progress and, therefore, the petitioner filed Writ No. 531 (S/B) of 2025 before this Court praying for quashing of Clause 8 of the advertisement and for directing the respondents to consider his candidature for grant of age relaxation as per the provisions contained in the Relaxation Rules 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 9^th December 2025 directing the State to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27.11.2025, within a period of two weeks, in accordance with law. It was further provided that in case the representation is allowed, the petitioner would be permitted to participate in the selection process in pursuance of advertisement dated 13.11.2025.

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction the representation of the petitioner for relaxation in upper age limit has been considered and rejected by the impugned order dated 24.12.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation has been rejected solely placing reliance on Rule 10 of the Uttarakhand Provincial Medical and Health Service Rules 2014 and Uttarakhand Recruitment in Service Age Limit Rules 2014 , and the first amendment made therein vide Notification dated 25.02.2014. The Relaxation Rules 2003 which have overriding effect over the service rules have not b