Age Relaxation Error: SC Rules Against High Court, No Promise of Regularization

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in directing age relaxation for SC/ST and OBC candidates based on a non-binding precedent. The doctrine of legitimate expectation did not apply as there was no promise of regularization, and the discrimination claim was unfounded. The judgment was set aside, and the appeals were allowed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Relaxation of age limit for SC/ST and OBC candidates.
2. Applicability of the decision in Nagendra Chandra's case.
3. Doctrine of legitimate expectation.
4. Alleged discrimination in the appointment process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Relaxation of Age Limit for SC/ST and OBC Candidates:
The High Court directed a relaxation of five years for SC/ST candidates and three years for OBC candidates in the age limit for selection to the post of Sepoy in the Central Excise department. This relaxation was applicable only to candidates who were erstwhile employees of the department. The respondents, who were part-time contingent casual laborers, were initially allowed to participate in the recruitment process but were later excluded due to age constraints. The Tribunal and High Court's orders were challenged, leading to the current appeals.

2. Applicability of the Decision in Nagendra Chandra's Case:
The Tribunal had applied the ratio of the decision in Nagendra Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 798, which was contested by the appellants. The Supreme Court clarified that the observation regarding age relaxation in Nagendra Chandra's case was made under Article 142 of the Constitution, which is not a binding precedent and cannot be applied generally. The factual situation in the present case, involving casual laborers without sanctioned posts, was distinct from Nagendra Chandra's case, which involved irregular appointments against sanctioned posts.

3. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation:
The respondents claimed that their long-term engagement created a legitimate expectation of regularization. The Supreme Court referred to the principle of legitimate expectation, emphasizing that it arises when an administrative body induces an expectation through representation or past practice. However, the Court found that the respondents were explicitly informed that their appointments were temporary and did not confer any right to permanent posts. The doctrine of legitimate expectation was not applicable as there was no promise of regularization, and the respondents were aware of the temporary nature of their employment.

4. Alleged Discrimination in the Appointment Process:
The respondents argued that similarly situated persons had been appointed as Sepoys, suggesting discriminatory treatment. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that a writ of mandamus requires a legal right and corresponding obligation, and an illegality cannot be perpetuated. The Court emphasized that there cannot be equality in illegality, and the mere fact that some individuals were irregularly appointed does not justify similar treatment for others.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in directing age relaxation based on Nagendra Chandra's case, as it was not a binding precedent and did not apply to the facts at hand. The doctrine of legitimate expectation was not applicable, and the claim of discrimination was unfounded. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appeals were allowed without any order as to costs.

---