High Court · 2025

"Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the application form of the petitioner pursuant to advertisement dated 18.07.2025 for the post of Assistant Teacher contained as Annexure-4 to the writ petition."

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner participated in the Assistant Teacher, Trained Graduates Grade (Male/Female Branch) Examination 2018, but he was not selected.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the vacancy for the post of Assistant Teacher were existed in the year 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, but since the respondent did not advertise against the said vacancies for the post of Assistant Teacher, therefore, he could not applied for the said post.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that after 2018 advertisement, respondent no.2 published vacancies for the post of Assistant Teacher in various subjects and published advertisement inviting applications to be submitted by 28.08.2025.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that as per the advertisement, the candidates, who are applying for the post of Assistant Teacher, the age prescribed between 21 to 40 years as on 01.07.2025. There are 7466 vacancies of Assistant Teachers, out of which 4860 posts for Male Branch and 2525 posts for Female Branch.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that in terms of above-said advertisement as on 01.07.2025, the age of petitioner is 44 years and 9 months, then the petitioner was over-aged by 4 years and 9 months and he has become ineligible for applying the post of Assistant Teacher.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and others reported in 2006 (9) SCC 507 for issuance of order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner after giving age relaxation for about five years is not applicable in the instant case.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents submitted that age limit and relaxation to upper age limit have been given to the advertisement itself. In the instant case, the petitioner has been over-aged by four years and nine months as and on 1st July, 2025, who belongs to the General Category, therefore, no age relaxation has been given to the petitioner. In Malik Mazhar case which is related to the recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2002 in three phases. It is also submitted that there are certain rules, in which the "Year of recruitment" have been defined. As per the Rules 4 (m) which states that in these rules unless the context as otherwise required - "year of recruitment" means period of 12 months commencing from the first day of July of the calendar year in which the process of recruitment is initiated by the appointing authority, but in the instant case, the petitioner has failed to point out such a rules which is applicable in the recruitment of Assistant Teacher.

9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents submitted that therefore, the ratio of Malik Mazhar (supra) is not applicable in the instant case.

10. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the State-respondents, perused the contents made in the writ petition and documents on record.

11. As per the advertisement, upper age limit shall be greater by five years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes of U.P., Scheduled Tribes of U.P., Other Backward Classes of U.P., Skilled players of U.P. of Classified Games, State Govt. Employees of U.P. including Teachers/Staff of the Basic Shiksha Parishad of U.P. and Teachers/Staff of the Government Aided Madhyamik Vidyalayas of U.P. i.e. they must have not been born before 2nd July, 1980. The upper age limit shall be greater by fifteen years for physically handicapped persons of U.P. The upper age limit shall also be greater by three years period of service rendered in Army for the Emergency Commissioned Officers/Short service Commissioned Officers/Ex-Army Personnel of U.P.

12. The basic issue in the instant writ petition is that since the advertisement of recruitment for the post of Assistant Teacher has not been published every year against the vacancy available. The instant advertisement was issued in the year 2025 and the last advertisement was issued in the year 2018, therefore, after seven years, the instant advertisement was published by the Public Service Commission for recruitment of the Assistant Teacher, due to that reason, the petitioner became overage about five years.

13. In view of above-said facts, if any, delay in process of recruitment, contrary to any statutory provision and without any sufficient reason, the Writ Court may issue mandamus or direction, order and writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authority to relax the age of upper limit of the candidate, but in the instant case after perusal of entire documents on record and averments made therein there are no such pleading in the instant writ petition that the advertisement for recruitment is contrary to the statutory provision or there are also no pleading on record that such delay for initiating the recruitment process for filling up the vacancy of the Assistant Teacher without sufficient reason. Since, the petitioner has failed to make out any case that the delay in recruitment is without any reason or any contrary to provision of the statute, I do not find any reason to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ, mandamus for directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner in spite that he has already over-aged by four years and nine months.

14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. . Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Atul (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

"Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the application form of the petitioner pursuant to advertisement dated 18.07.2025 for the post of Assistant Teacher contained as Annexure-4 to the writ petition."

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner participated in the Assistant Teacher, Trained Graduates Grade (Male/Female Branch) Examination 2018, but he was not selected.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the vacancy for the post of Assistant Teacher were existed in the year 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, but since the respondent did not advertise against the said vacancies for the post of Assistant Teacher, therefore, he could not applied for the said post.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that after 2018 advertisement, respondent no.2 published vacancies for the post of Assistant Teacher in various subjects and published advertisement inviting applications to be submitted by 28.08.2025.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that as per the advertisement, the candidates, who are applying for the post of Assistant Teacher, the age prescribed between 21 to 40 years as on 01.07.2025. There are 7466 vacancies of Assistant Teachers, out of which 4860 posts for Male Branch and 2525 posts for Female Branch.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that in terms of above-said advertisement as on 01.07.2025, the age of petitioner is 44 years and 9 months, then the petitioner was over-aged by 4 years and 9 months and he has become ineligible for applying the post of Assistant Teacher.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and others reported in 2006 (9) SCC 507 for issuance of order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner after giving age relaxation for about five years is not applicable in the instant case.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents submitted that age limit and relaxation to upper age limit have been given to the advertisement itself. In the instant case, the petitioner has been over-aged by four years and nine months as and on 1st July, 2025, who belongs to the General Category, therefore, no age relaxation has been given to the petitioner. In Malik Mazhar case which is related to the recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2002 in three phases. It is also submitted that there are certain rules, in which the "Year of recruitment" have been defined. As per the Rules 4 (m) which states that in these rules unless the context as otherwise required - "year of recruitment" means period of 12 months commencing from the first day of July of the calendar year in which the process of recruitment is initiated by the appointing authority, but in the instant case, the petitioner has failed to point out such a rules which is applicable in the recruitment of Assistant Teacher.

9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents submitted that therefore, the ratio of Malik Mazhar (supra) is not applicable in the instant case.

10. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the State-respondents, perused the contents made in the writ petition and documents on record.

11. As per the advertisement, upper age limit shall be greater by five years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes of U.P., Scheduled Tribes of U.P., Other Backward Classes of U.P., Skilled players of U.P. of Classified Games, State Govt. Employees of U.P. including Teachers/Staff of the Basic Shiksha Parishad of U.P. and Teachers/Staff of the Government Aided Madhyamik Vidyalayas of U.P. i.e. they must have not been born before 2nd July, 1980. The upper age limit shall be greater by fifteen years for physically handicapped persons of U.P. The upper age limit shall also be greater by three years period of service rendered in Army for the Emergency Commissioned Officers/Short service Commissioned Officers/Ex-Army Personnel of U.P.

12. The basic issue in the instant writ petition is that since the advertisement of recruitment for the post of Assistant Teacher has not been published every year against the vacancy available. The instant advertisement was issued in the year 2025 and the last advertisement was issued in the year 2018, therefore, after seven years, the instant advertisement was published by the Public Service Commission for recruitment of the Assistant Teacher, due to that reason, the petitioner became overage about five years.

13. In view of above-said facts, if any, delay in process of recruitment, contrary to any statutory provision and without any sufficient reason, the Writ Court may issue mandamus or direction, order and writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authority to relax the age of upper limit of the candidate, but in the instant case after perusal of entire documents on record and averments made therein there are no such pleading in the instant writ petition that the advertisement for recruitment is contrary to the statutory provision or there are also no pleading on record that such delay for initiating the recruitment process for filling up the vacancy of the Assistant Teacher without sufficient reason. Since, the petitioner has failed to make out any case that the delay in recruitment is without any reason or any contrary to provision of the statute, I do not find any reason to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ, mandamus for directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner in spite that he has already over-aged by four years and nine months.

14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. . Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Atul (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad