Holding

The power to relax the upper age limit under Article 45 is limited to the categories specified (SC/ST and retrenched central government employees) and cannot be exercised for general‑category candidates.

Summary

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) advertised eight Lower Division Clerk vacancies with an upper age limit of 25 years, relaxable only for specified categories. Four applicants, including Sajal Kumar Roy, were over‑aged and not members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or other exempt categories, yet were allowed to sit for the written and typing tests. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking relaxation of the age limit; the CAT directed KVS to appoint them after relaxing the age bar. The Gauhati High Court, while directing the appointing authority to consider relaxation, also upheld the CAT's order. KVS appealed, arguing that the respondents did not fall within the categories permitted for age relaxation under Article 45 of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas. The Supreme Court held that the discretionary power to relax the age limit is confined to the categories expressly mentioned in the Code and cannot be exercised for general‑category candidates; consequently, the Tribunal and High Court erred. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' orders.

Issues considered

Whether the age limit for recruitment of Lower Division Clerks under Article 45 of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas can be relaxed for candidates belonging to the general category.

Subjects

service lawrecruitmentage limitrelaxation of agediscretionary powerKendriya VidyalayaCentral Administrative Tribunalappointmentgeneral category

Judgment

KENDRIYA VJDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS. A
v.
SAJAL KUMAR ROY AND ORS.

OCTOBER 19, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas:
c
Article 45-Age limit-Provision for relaxation to candidates ofspecified
categories-Relaxation in upper age limit directed by Tribunal and High
Court to be given to candidates belonging to General Categories not falling
in the specified categories-Held, Tribunal and High Court committed manifest
error in issuing the directions.
D
The respondents, in pursuance of an advertisement, applied for the post
of Lower Division Clerk. The respondents were said.to be near relatives of
the employees of regional office of the appellant-Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, and had crossed the prescribed upper age limit. Written and typing
tests were held. Certain irregularities were alleged to have been committed E
in the typing test. An original application was filed in the Central
Administrative Tribunal for a direction to the appellants to relax the upper
age bar. The Tribunal directed for appointment of the respondents after
relaxing the age limit The High Court, in writ petition held that appointment
could not have been ordered unless the appointing authority exercised the
power of relaxation of age limit and directed the appointing authority to F
consider relaxation of age limit and thereafter issue appointment orders to
the respondents on the basis of their merit.

In the present appeal filed by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, it was
contended that the regional office committed irregularities in allowing the G
respondents to appear in the written and typing tests as they had crossed the
prescribed age limit and the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed
error of law in directing to appoint them after consideration of relaxation of
age bar.

607 H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.CR.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: It is not in dispute that the respondent, were over-aged on the
relevant date. They are not members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. Article 45 of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas prescribing
the age limit is in two parts. The first part talks about the age limit. The
B second part provides for relaxation. Such relaxation can be granted for the
purpose specified, i.e. in favour of those who answered the descriptions stated
therein. Relaxation of age limit even in relation to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes candidates or the Retrenched Central Government
employees, including the defence personnel is, however, not automatic. The
C appointing authorities are required to apply their mind while exercising their
discretionary jurisdiction to relax the age limit. Discretion of the authorities
is required to be exercised only for deserving candidates and upon
recommendations of the Appointing Committee/Selection Committee. The
requirements to comply with the rules, it is trite, were required to be complied
with fairly and reasonably. They were bound by the rules. The discretionary
D jurisdiction could be exercised for relaxation of age provided for in the rules
and within the four corners thereof. As respondents do not come within the
purview of the exception contained in Article 45 of the Education Code, the
Tribunal and, consequently, the High Court committed a manifest error in
issuing the directions. [609-F; 612-A-El

E Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh and Ors., [2005) 3
SCC 618 and Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 11997] 6 SCC
614, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4569 of2006.

F From the Judgment and final Order dated 12.8.2004 of the High Court
ofGauhati at Gauhati in W.P. (C) No. 7281/2001.

S. Rajappa for the Appellants.

Amitesh Kumar and Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.

Appellant before us is a society registered under the Societies
H Registration Act. It runs a chain of schools known as Kendriya Vidyalayas •
KENDRIY A VIDY ALAYA SANG ATHAN v. SAJAL KUMAR ROY [S.B. SINHA,!] 609

all over the country. An advertisement was issued in respect of eight vacancies A
which arose in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Silchar region.
Respondent applied for recruitment to the said post pursuant to or in
furtherance of the said advertisement. Written and typing tests were held. As
per Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Appointment, Promotion, Seniority) Rules,
1971 (for short, 'the Rules), the age limit prescribed therefor was 18-25 years B
as on 30.6.1994, which was, however, relaxable. Respondents are said to be
near relatives of the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Regional
Office, Silchar. The candidates who were over-aged were also permitted to
appear at the examination in contravention of the Rules. Certain irregularities
were also committed in the matter of conducting typing test. Higher authorities
of the school were moved for cancellation of the recruitment of the LDCs. C
An Original Application was filed by Respondents before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, praying for a direction upon
Appellants to relax the age of the candidates. By an order dated 15.3.2001,
the Tribunal directed Appellants to do so. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied
therewith, a writ petition was filed by Appellants before the Gauhati High D
Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court directed :

"In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, we hold that direction,
as issued by the Tribunal, could not have been given for appointment
of the private respondents, until and unless the Appointing Authority E
exercises the power of relaxation of age limit. In view of the above,
we direct the Appointing Authority to consider the case of respondents
herein, for relaxation of the age limit within a period of 3 (three)
months from the placement of a certified copy of this order before the
Appointing Authority, and on relaxation of the age limit, include their
names in the select list and thereafter issue appointment orders to F
them, in accordance with law on the basis of the merit of the candidate."

It is not in dispute before us that Respondents were over-aged on the
relevant date. The particulars of Respondents, who had filed applications
pursuant to the said advertisement, are as under :
SI. Name Date of Birth Category
G
No.

I. Jagadish Kr. Projapati 02-05-1968 OBC

2. Sajal Kr. Roy 30-09-1968 GEN
H
610 SUPREME COUR r REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A 3. Dhruba Jyoti Chakraborty 10-11-1968 GEN

4. Kalyan Jyoti Chakraborty I 1-11-1968 GEN

The short question which arises for consideration before us is: Whether,
B in tenns of the extant Rules, age of the general candidates was relaxable?

Mr. S. Rajappa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellants
would submit that the High Court committed an error in directing consideration
of relaxation of age bar in respect of Respondents. The learned counsel
would further submit that the regional office committed illegalities in allowing
C Respondents to appear at the written and typing examination, although they
were admittedly over-aged and, thus, were not eligible for appointment.

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents, on the other hand, would support the judgment.

D The Tribunal, although, noticed that Respondents crossed the age bar,
but opined that keeping in view the fact that the relaxation of age was
specifically referred to in the advertisement, they were otherwise eligible
therefor. The Tribunal in support of its finding referred to a purported letter
dated 29.3.1995 issued by Assistant Commissioner, Administration, KVS to
E Assistant Commissioner, KVS Silchar, which is in the following terms ;

"I am to invite a reference to your office letter No. F.2-16/94-KVS
(SR) dated 15.03.1995 and to state that the process of interview/
selection may kindly be completed as per the advertisement dated
28th May 3rd June 1994 and subsequent clarification thereon published
F in the Employment News dated 21-27 January 1995. After completion
of the selection if any candidate, with overage selected by virtue of
the concession at para 8(b) and (c) of the advertisement, case may be
taken up for relaxation of upper age prior to issue of offer of
appointment.. ..."

G In the aforementioned situation, it was held :

"The action of the respondents in not issuing appointment letters
to the applicants appears to be arbitrary. The applicants on their
merits qualified for appointment. The age relaxation is being allowed

H
and can be relaxed by the organization. As irregularity in the selection
process has not been established the applicants request for issue of -
KENDRIY A VIDY ALAYA SA NGATHAN 1·. SAJAL KUMAR ROY[S.B. SINHA, J.) 6JJ

appointment letters is justified. The respondents are directed to A'
reconsider the applicants case for appointment. This process should
be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt
copy of this order."

It is not in dispute that Appellants have framed rules for recruitment
known as Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas. Article 45 of the said B
Code provides for age limit in the following terms:

"45. Age Limits

The following upper age limits have been prescribed for recruitment
to the posts : C
Assistant Commissioner 30-40 years
~ Principal 35-50 years
PGT 40 years
D
TGT 35 years
Primary Teacher 30 years
Music Teacher 30 years
Other teachers 35 years
E
Including Librarian
LDC and } 25 years
UDC }

Group D 18-25
years Lab Attendants F

The upper age limits are relaxable in the case of special categories
as follows :

(i) Scheduled Caste/Tribe - 5 years
(ii) Retrenched Central Govt. } Period of their G
employees including } service in Civil/
_;;
defence personnel. } Military Departments increased
by 3 years.

The appointing authority can, in his discretion, relax these age- H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A limits in deserving cases on the recommendation of the Appointments
Committee/ Selection Committee."

Respondents are not members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. Age limit is prescribed for appointment to the general category of
employees. The upper age limit for appointment to the post of LDC is 25
B years. The advertisement also says so. The Rules, as noticed hereinbefore,
are in two parts. The first part talks about the age limit. The second part
provides for relaxation. Such relaxation can be granted for the purpose
specified, i.e., in favour of those who answered the descriptions stated therein.
Relaxation of age limit even in relation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
C Tribes candidates or the Retrenched Central Government employees, including
the defence personnel, is, however, not automatic. The appointing authorities
are required to apply their mind while exercising their discretionary jurisdiction
to relax the age limits. Discretion of the authorities is required to be exercised
only for deserving candidates and upon recommendations of the Appointing
Committee/Selection Committee. The requirements to comply with the rules,
D it is trite, were required to be complied with fairly and reasonably. They were
bound by the rules. The discretionary jurisdiction could be exercised for
relaxation of age provided for in the rules and within the four corners thereof.
As Respondents do not come within the purview of the exception contained
in Article 45 of the Education Code, in our opinion, the Tribunal and
E consequently, the High Court committed a manifest error in issuing the
aforementioned directions.

In Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh & Ors., (2005] 3
SCC 618, this Court stated the law thus :

" .... While the maximum age prescribed under the Recruitment Rules is
F 35/40 years for the posts concerned, departmental candidates in the
age of 52-53 years were proposed to be appointed. Even assuming
that there is a power of relaxation under the Regulations, we think that
the power of relaxation cannot be exercised in such a manner that it
completely distorts the Regulations. The power of relaxation is intended
G to be used in marginal cases where exceptionally qualified candidates
are available. We do not think that they are intended as an "open
sesame" for all and sundry. The wholesale go-by given to the
Regulations, and the manner in which the recruitment process was
being done, was very much reviewable as a policy directive, in exercise
of the power of the Central Government under Section 6(2) of the
H ..
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGA THANr. SAJALKUMARROY[S.B. SINHA,!] 613

Act." A

Yet again in Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State ofRajasthan & Ors., [1997] 6 SCC
614, the law is stated in the following terms :

" .... Jn other words, what is contended is that if on the date when the
vacancy occurred, the candidates were within the maximum age B
prescribed by reference to the cut-off date, then if the advertisement
is delayed, their age should be considered with reference to the cut-
off date of I st January following the date of occurrence of vacancy.
For example, if the vacancy has occurred on I st of April of a given
year, and the applicant would be within the maximum age on the !st C
of January of the following year, then such a candidate will be
considered as eligible even if the advertisement is issued not in April
of that year but say February of the following year. All the candidates
will get age relaxation of one year. In our view this kind of an
interpretation cannot be given to a rule for relaxation of age. The
power of relaxation is required to be exercised in public interest in a D
given case; as for example, if other suitable candidates are not available
for the post, and the only candidate who is suitable has crossed the
maximum age-limit; or to mitigate hardship in a given case. Such a
relaxation in special circumstances of a given case is to be exercised
by the administration after referring that case to the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission. There cannot be any wholesale relaxation because E
the advertisement is delayed or because the vacancy occurred earlier
especially when there is no allegation of any mala fides in connection
with any delay in issuing an advertisement. This kind of power of
wholesale relaxation would make for total uncertainty in determining
the maximum of age of a candidate. It might be unfair to a large F
number of candidates who might be similarly situated, but who may
not apply, thinking that they are age-barred. We fail to see how the
power of relaxation can be exercised in the manner contended."

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. In the facts G
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

RP. Appeal allowed.