The High Court of Tripura has dismissed a writ petition filed by Nayan Kumar Dhar, who sought a court-mandated age relaxation to compete for Group-C positions within the state government. Presiding over the matter, Justice Biswajit Palit ruled that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims that a previous recruitment process, in which he had participated, was officially cancelled by the authorities. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the Joint Recruitment Board of Tripura (JRBT) to reject his candidature on the grounds that he exceeded the maximum age limit prescribed for the selection process.

The dispute originated from a recruitment drive initiated by the JRBT, which issued advertisements in 2020 and 2021 to fill thousands of vacancies, including Lower Division Clerk and Agriculture Assistant roles. The recruitment notification included a specific clause allowing for a one-time upper-age relaxation for candidates who had participated in previous, cancelled recruitment processes, provided they could supply documentary evidence of their earlier involvement. Mr. Dhar, aged 45 at the time of the petition, applied for these positions, relying on his participation in a 2018 Department of Agriculture selection process for an Agriculture Assistant post.

In his petition, Mr. Dhar argued that because the 2018 recruitment process was cancelled, he was entitled to the age relaxation benefit offered under the JRBT’s new recruitment policy. He produced a token issued during that earlier selection process as evidence of his participation. He further contended that, despite securing 121.75 marks in the written test and subsequent interview, the board had unfairly excluded his name from the merit list while recommending other candidates who had scored lower than him. Mr. Dhar sought a mandamus order to compel the authorities to include his name in the final merit list and to grant him the age relaxation he believed was his due.

However, the state respondents and the JRBT challenged the petitioner’s assertions in their counter-affidavits. The board maintained that while the petitioner had indeed participated in the 2018 Agriculture Department selection, he failed to prove that the specific advertisement in question—dated September 25, 2018—had ever been cancelled. Legal representatives for the JRBT pointed out that while an earlier 2017 recruitment process within the same department had been officially cancelled, the 2018 process was a separate initiative that remained valid under the prevailing recruitment policies established by the government.

The core of the legal contention revolved around the interpretation of the age relaxation clause. The court noted that the petitioner could not produce any formal notification or official correspondence from the Department of Agriculture certifying the cancellation of the 2018 advertisement. The respondents argued that the token provided by the petitioner merely confirmed participation in an active process rather than a cancelled one. Furthermore, the court observed that the petitioner had taken no steps under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to obtain official documentation to verify the status of the 2018 advertisement, despite the burden of proof resting upon him to substantiate his eligibility for the age-based exemption.

In assessing the evidence, Justice Palit emphasized the strict requirement for documentation in administrative recruitment procedures. The court found that the petitioner’s reliance on the token from 2018 was insufficient to satisfy the conditions for a one-time age relaxation. Addressing the burden of proof , the judgment stated, "It was also the duty of the petitioner to produce documentary evidence on record that the said notification dated 25.09. 2018 issued by the Department of Agriculture was cancelled by the Department."

The court further evaluated the internal consistency of the recruitment process. It was noted that the state government’s recruitment policy, formulated in August 2018, explicitly limited the age relaxation benefit to those who had participated in demonstrably cancelled processes. Because the petitioner could not provide a clear, unambiguous document indicating that the 2018 advertisement had been annulled, the court found no legal basis to override the age criteria set by the JRBT.

The court’s scrutiny also extended to the fairness of the selection process itself. Although the petitioner highlighted that he had scored higher than certain recommended candidates, the court clarified that scoring high marks does not grant a candidate immunity from meeting the essential eligibility criteria , such as the maximum age limit. By failing to qualify for the age relaxation, the petitioner was effectively ineligible for the post from the inception of his application. In its concluding remarks on the board's decision, the court observed, "The JRBT rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner."

With the dismissal of the petition, the court upheld the finality of the merit list published by the JRBT on September 13, 2023. The ruling underscores the necessity for candidates to maintain thorough and verifiable documentation when asserting claims for exceptions or relaxations in government recruitment. The decision confirms that, without concrete evidence of an official cancellation of prior recruitment processes, applicants remain subject to the standard age limitations prescribed by the state’s employment policies. The case effectively concludes with the rejection of the petitioner's plea, and all pending applications associated with the matter have been disposed of accordingly.