Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Dattatreya Raut, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) to permit him to apply for the post of stipendiary trainee (technician) despite being overage. The petitioner's grandfather's agricultural lands were acquired for the Tarapur Atomic Energy Project, and the petitioner was nominated as a project affected person. He had completed an ITI certificate course in Fitter trade. In 2001, he applied but was not selected. In 2011, he was not allowed to participate, leading to Writ Petition No. 1808 of 2011, which was disposed of with a statement that his claim would be considered in future recruitment subject to eligibility. In 2017, NPCIL issued an advertisement for stipendiary trainees with an age limit of 24 years (relaxable by 5 years for project affected persons). The petitioner was 39 years old and thus overage even after relaxation. He argued that as a project affected person, he should be granted further age relaxation. The respondents contended that age relaxation is a policy matter and cannot be claimed as a right. The court held that age relaxation is a policy decision of the employer and cannot be directed by the court. The petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, and the court cannot rewrite the terms of the advertisement. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Age Relaxation - Project Affected Persons - Policy Decision - The petitioner, a project affected person, sought direction to be allowed to apply for the post of stipendiary trainee despite being overage. The court held that age relaxation is a matter of policy and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The employer's decision to prescribe age limits is binding and the court cannot direct relaxation contrary to the advertisement. (Paras 1-15) B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - The court held that under Article 226, it cannot direct an employer to relax age limits or permit an ineligible candidate to apply, as it would amount to rewriting the terms of the advertisement. (Paras 12-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a project affected person, who does not fulfill the age requirement prescribed in the recruitment advertisement, can be directed to be permitted to apply for the post of stipendiary trainee (technician) by way of relaxation of age limit.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Age relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right
- Policy decision of employer regarding age limits is binding
- Project affected persons are not entitled to relaxation beyond policy
- Writ court cannot direct relaxation contrary to advertisement
