One-time age relaxation in recruitment does not create a continuing right for later selections under the same eligibility rules.

A one-time age relaxation granted in a specific recruitment year did not create a continuing right to similar relaxation in later recruitments. The Court held that the applicable recruitment rules fixed the upper age limit for Teacher (Primary) posts, and the earlier decision had to be read in its own context as a limited hardship measure, not as an override of future eligibility conditions. Because the respondent applied under a later advertisement, the prior relaxation could not be extended to displace the governing rules. The claim to consideration despite being over the age limit therefore failed, and the eligibility conditions remained operative under the applicable rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier decision granting one-time age relaxation in recruitment to the post of Teacher (Primary) could be applied to a later recruitment process, and whether the respondent was entitled to consideration despite being over the prescribed upper age limit.

Analysis: The recruitment rules fixed an upper age limit of 27 years for the post, and the earlier decision relied upon by the respondent was examined in its actual context. That earlier case had upheld the statutory recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, and the relaxation granted there was a limited one-time measure to meet hardship in a particular recruitment year. The judgment did not create a continuing entitlement to age relaxation for all future recruitments. The respondent applied pursuant to a later advertisement, and the earlier decision could not be extended to override the applicable eligibility conditions for that recruitment. The challenge based on relaxation therefore failed.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to the age relaxation claimed, and the direction to consider his candidature on that basis was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal were set aside, leaving the recruitment eligibility conditions to operate according to the applicable rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A one-time relaxation granted in a specific recruitment context does not create a general right to similar relaxation in later recruitments governed by the same eligibility rules.

---