Mandamus cannot compel age-relaxation in recruitment absent a statutory duty; past concessions create no enforceable right.

Service rules governing direct recruitment prescribed an upper age limit of 28 years and limited relaxation categories; earlier NMR engagement did not confer any enforceable right to appointment or age relaxation, and prior ad hoc concessions to others could not be relied on to claim equality as of right. A writ of mandamus could not be issued to compel consideration or grant of exemption from the age bar because no enabling rule created a statutory duty or corresponding legal right. The High Court's relief was therefore unsustainable, and termination of the respondents for ineligibility under the service rules was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether employees who were overage under the service rules could claim appointment or continuation on the basis of earlier NMR engagement and past relaxations granted to others. (ii) Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the employer to consider or grant exemption from the prescribed upper age limit in the absence of any enabling rule.

Issue (i): Whether employees who were overage under the service rules could claim appointment or continuation on the basis of earlier NMR engagement and past relaxations granted to others.

Analysis: The service rules governed direct recruitment and prescribed an upper age limit of 28 years, while also specifying the limited categories for age relaxation. The rules did not provide that earlier service as NMR employees would entitle a candidate to relaxation or appointment. Past concessions granted to other employees were held to be ad hoc and could not create an enforceable right in favour of the respondents. The finding of invidious discrimination was rejected because equality could not be claimed to perpetuate an illegality or to demand a concession as of right.

Conclusion: The respondents had no enforceable right to appointment or age relaxation on the basis of earlier NMR service or prior concessions to others.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the employer to consider or grant exemption from the prescribed upper age limit in the absence of any enabling rule.

Analysis: Mandamus lies only to compel performance of a statutory duty. The service rules contained no provision creating a legal duty to grant exemption beyond the limited relaxation already provided. Since no statutory right or corresponding duty existed, the direction to consider exemption from the age bar had no legal foundation.

Conclusion: No writ of mandamus could be issued to require consideration or grant of exemption from the upper age limit.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's relief was unsustainable, and the employer's action terminating the respondents for ineligibility under the service rules was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of mandamus cannot compel relaxation or exemption from a recruitment eligibility condition unless the governing rules create a statutory duty and a corresponding enforceable right; past ad hoc concessions do not confer such a right.

---