Riya C.TMathosree House v. Union of India representingThe Chief Secretary

WP No. 2297 of 2026__________Page1 of 6IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAMANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMARWP No. 2297 of 2026, WP No. 3173 of 2026, WP NO. 3238 OF 2026,WP NO. 3232 OF 2026,WP NO. 3180 OF 2026, WP NO. 3222 OF 2026WP No. 3189 of 2026, WP NO. 3246 OF 2026, WP NO. 3227 OF 2026,WP NO. 3201 OF 2026andWMP NO. 3581 OF 2026,WMP NO. 3591 OF 2026,WMP NO. 3599 OF 2026, WMP NO. 3674 OF 2026,WMP NO. 3675 OF 2026, WMP NO. 3655 OF 2026, WMP NO. 3619 OF 2026WP No. 2297 of 2026 Riya C.TMathosree House, East Pallor, Mahe, Pondicherry-673310...Petitioner(s)Vs1.Union of India representingThe Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

The Secretary to Government (Education)Chief SecretariatGovernment of Puducherry, Puducherry.

The Director of School EducationDirectorate of School Education, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry- 605 005. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 2297 of 2026__________Page2 of 6..Respondent(s)Prayer in W.P.No.2297: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A. No. 630 of 2024 and to quash the same and to allow the Original Application as prayed for. For Petitioner(s):Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas forM/s.P.V.S.Giridhar Associates Law Chambers(in all the WPs)For Respondent(s):Mr. Syed MustafaSpecial Government Pleader (Puducherry)(in all the WPs)COMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)The present Writ Petitions have been instituted challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 12.08.2025.2.A recruitment notification came to be issued by the respondents for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturers and Trained Graduate Teachers. Admittedly the process of selection was concluded and selected candidates were appointed and are serving in the Department. 3. The original applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal have filed the present Writ Petitions, mainly on the ground that they are fully https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 2297 of 2026__________Page3 of 6qualified for the post and possessing all necessary qualifications but overage. Thus they have filed the application seeking age relaxation and to appoint them to the posts of Lectures and Trained Graduate Teachers respectively. The Central Administrative Tribunal by relying on the Supreme Court judgments in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Shivbachan Rai reported in (2001) 9 SCC 356, Mallikarjuna Rao Vs. State of A.P. reported in (1990) 2 SCC 707, Asif Hameed & Others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others reported in (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 364, Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani and Ors reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242 and Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85, dismissed the Original Applications.

The learned counsel for the writ petitioners would contend that all the petitioners are educationally qualified and possess all the requisite qualifications, but they are overaged. There was a delay in issuing the recruitment notification which resulted in denial of opportunity to the writ petitioners to participate in the process of selection. Thus, this court has to consider grant of age relaxation to these writ petitioners for appointment to the said post.

This Court is of the considered view that prescription of educational https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 2297 of 2026__________Page4 of 6qualifications, age and other criteria for appointment are the prerogative of an employer. Such decisions are taken by the administration based on the nature of job, responsibilities involved and other factors. The High Court is not expected to substitute the qualifications or express any opinion unless, such prescription is in violation of the statutes and rules applicable to the post. In the present case, the writ petitioners seek age relaxation, grant of age relaxation, if granted would result in larger repercussions and hundreds of similarly placed unqualified persons would approach the High Court seeking age relaxation, which is impermissible under law. In other words, High Court in exercising the powers of judicial review cannot grant age relaxation to a candidate to participate in the process of selection to a public post.