Gujarat High Court
Vankar Girishkumar Hirabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 27 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1265 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15790 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1265 of 2025
==========================================================
VANKAR GIRISHKUMAR HIRABHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHACHI G MATHUR(3069) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sachi G.
Mathur for the appellant.
2. By this appeal filed under Clause 15
of the Letters Patent, the appellants have
challenged the judgment and order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
03.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge
whereby prayer of the appellants to
participate in the recruitment process by
relaxing the age limit is rejected on the
ground that the appellants failed to show
any exception to interfere with
administrative directions and policy
matters while exercising extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the
appellants original petitioners have made
a prayer in Special Civil Application to
direct the respondents to give relaxation
in upper age limit and grant age
relaxation upto four years in the
recruitment process of the Advertisement
Nos. 3 of 2024 and 4 of 2024 issued by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
respondent no.3 Gujarat State Primary
Education Selection Committee for the post
of Vidhya Sahayak in Standard 1 to 5 and
Standard 6 to 8. It was also prayed to
quash and set aside the recruitment
process.
4. So far as prayer for granting
relaxation in age limit by 4 years, it was
submitted by the learned advocate Ms.
Sachi Mathur appearing for the appellants
original petitioners that respondent no.3
is required to conduct the recruitment
process to the post of Vidhya Sahayak as
per the calendar of 10 years and from 2017
to 2022, no recruitment was made and
thereafter only in the year 2022,
recruitment process was undertaken for
only 500 posts and thereafter recruitment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
process for 12,000 vacancies were
undertaken in the year 2024. It was
therefore, submitted that the age limit
ought to have been relaxed to enable the
appellants to participate in recruitment
process of the year 2024.
5. It was further submitted that
decision in case of Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan and others v. Sajal Kumar Roy
and others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 671,
referred to and relied upon by the learned
Single Judge, as relied on behalf of the
respondents, could not have been applied
to the post of Vidhya Sahayak in Standard
1 to 5 and Standard 6 to 8 as the said
decision is pertaining to recruitment of
the clerical staff and not the teaching
staff.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
6. It was submitted that the respondents
are also required to relax the age limit
as the age limit for appearing in Teacher
Eligibility Test (TET) examination was
extended, as passing of TAT examination
is an eligibility criteria to participate
in recruitment of Vidhya Sahayak.
7. Having heard the learned advocate for
the appellant, it appears that the learned
Single Judge after considering the facts
of the case and decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan and others (supra) has come to
the conclusion that power of relaxation
can be exercised in public interest only
in a given case. Reliance was also made to
the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan
and others reported in (1997) 6 SCC 614
wherein it is held that powers of
discretion of relaxation of age by the
authority can be exercised in a given case
in public interest only if the suitable
candidates are not available for the post
and to mitigate hardships in a given case.
In facts of the case, the appellants
petitioners though were eligible to
participate in the recruitment process
conducted in 2022 but could not qualify,
therefore it cannot be said that the
appellants have been denied chance of
availing the benefit of recruitment
process.
8. The contention raised on behalf of the
appellants that only because there was an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
age relaxation given for appearing in TET
examination, the respondents are bound to
grant the age relaxation for the
recruitment of the Vidhya Sahayak in the
advertisement issued in the year 2024, is
without any basis as the object and
purpose of TET examination is different
than the recruitment to the post of Vidhya
Sahayak and when the age limit prescribed
by the respondents is a policy matter.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ugar
Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration
and others reported in (2001) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 635 and in case of
Directorate of Film Festivals and others
v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others reported
in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 737 has
held that High Court should not interfere
in the policy matters while exercising
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
9. Learned Single Judge has therefore,
rightly held while dismissing the petition
as under :
"7. This Court put a specific
query to learned advocate Mr.
Chudasama that when the last time
the advertisement was issued by
the State Government for
recruitment to the post of
Vidhayasahayak, learned advocate
Mr. Chudasama was fair enough to
state that last time the
advertisement was issued in the
year 2022 but at that time only
around 500 posts were advertised
whereas this time around only
12,000 vacancies in all in respect
of both the advertisements are
issued and the petitioners are not
in a position to participate only
on account that they have attained
the upper age limit. Therefore, in
light of above submissions, the
matter was considered.
8. It is true that the petitioners
have crossed the upper age limit
but at the same time it is equally
true that in the year 2022 also an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
advertisement was published and at
that time also the petitioners
should have participated in the
recruitment. Further though
learned advocate Mr. Chudasama had
pointed out at the instances by
the State Government by way of
Government Resolution that the
upper age limit is relaxed in
respect of certain recruitment
process and more particularly in
respect of recruitment of
Vidhasahayak as well in the year
2024 itself but at the same time,
learned advocate Mr. Chudasama
failed to point out that it is
obligatory on the part of State to
relax the age. Further learned
advocate Mr. Chudasama also could
not demonstrate the fact that
there is any illegality or
incompetence in fixing the upper
age limit and therefore, the
submissions of learned advocate
Mr. Chudasama required to be seen
in light of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon
by learned AGP Ms. Calla in case
of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
and others V/s. Sajal Kumar Roy
and Others reported in (2006) 8
SCC 671 wherein the Hon'ble Court
in paragraphs no. 11, 12 and 13
has observed as under:-
"11. The Respondents are not
members of the Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe. Age limit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
is prescribed for appointment
to the general category of
employees. The upper age-limit
for appointment to the post of
LDC is 25 years. The
advertisement also says so.
The Rules, as noticed
hereinbefore, are in two
parts. The first part talks
about the age-limit. The
second part provides for
relaxation. Such relaxation
can be granted for the purpose
specified i.e., in favour of
those who answered the
descriptions stated therein.
Relaxation of age- limit even
in relation to the Scheduled
Caste and the Scheduled Tribe
candidates or the retrenched
Central Government employees,
including the defence
personnel is, however, not
automatic. The appointing
authorities are required to
apply their mind while
exercising their discretionary
jurisdiction to relax the age-
limits. Discretion of the
authorities is required to be
exercised only for deserving
candidates and upon
recommendations of the
Appointing Committee/Selection
Committee. The requirements to
comply with the rules, it is
trite, were required to be
complied with fairly and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
reasonably. They were bound by
the rules. The discretionary
jurisdiction could be
exercised for relaxation of
age provided for in the rules
and within the four corners
thereof. As the respondents do
not come within the purview of
the exception contained in
Article 45 of the Education
Code, in our opinion, the
Tribunal and consequently, the
High Court committed a
manifest error in issuing the
aforementioned directions.
12. In Food Corporation of
India v. Bhanu Lodh this Court
stated the law thus : (SCC p.
628, para 23)
"....While the maximum age
prescribed under the
Recruitment Rules is 35/40
years for the posts
concerned, departmental
candidates in the age of
52-53 years were proposed
to be appointed. Even
assuming that there is a
power of relaxation under
the Regulations, we think
that the power of
relaxation cannot be
exercised in such a manner
that it completely
distorts the Regulations.
The power of relaxation is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
intended to be used in
marginal cases where
exceptionally qualified
candidates are available.
We do not think that they
are intended as an 'open
sesame' for all and
sundry. The wholesale go-
by given to the
Regulations, and the
manner in which the
recruitment process was
being done, was very much
reviewable as a policy
directive, in exercise of
the power of the Central
Government under Section
6(2) of the Act."
13. Yet again in Dr. Ami Lal
Bhat (Dr.) v. State of
Rajasthan the law is stated in
the following terms : (SCC pp.
620-21, paras 10-11)
"10.... In other words, what
is contended is that if on
the date when the vacancy
occurred, the candidates
were within the maximum
age prescribed by
reference to the cut-off
date, then if the
advertisement is delayed,
their age should be
considered with reference
to the cut-off date of 1st
January following the date
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
of occurrence of vacancy.
For example, if the
vacancy has occurred on
1st of April of a given
year, and the applicant
would be within the
maximum age on the 1st of
January of the following
year, then such a
candidate will be
considered as eligible
even if the advertisement
is issued not in April of
that year but say February
of the following year. All
the candidates will get
age relaxation of one
year.
11. In our view this kind
of an interpretation
cannot be given to a rule
for relaxation of age. The
power of relaxation is
required to be exercised
in public interest in a
given case; as for
example, if other suitable
candidates are not
available for the post,
and the only candidate who
is suitable has crossed
the maximum age-limit; or
to mitigate hardship in a
given case. Such a
relaxation in special
circumstances of a given
case is to be exercised by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
the administration after
referring that case to the
Rajasthan Public Service
Commission. There cannot
be any wholesale
relaxation because the
advertisement is delayed
or because the vacancy
occurred earlier
especially when there is
no allegation of any mala
fides in connection with
any delay in issuing an
advertisement. This kind
of power of wholesale
relaxation would make for
total uncertainty in
determining the maximum
age of a candidate. It
might be unfair to a large
number of candidates who
might be similarly
situated, but who may not
apply, thinking that they
are age-barred. We fail to
see how the power of
relaxation can be
exercised in the manner
contended."
The above paragraphs would
indicate that the power of
relaxation is required to be
exercised in public interest only
in a given case and not in every
case. Further Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Dr. Amitlal Bhat
V/s. State of Rajsthan reported in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
1997 6 SCC 614 held that the power
of relaxation of age is required
to be exercised in public interest
in a given case and only when if
the suitable candidates are not
available for the post and all to
mitigate hardship in a given case.
9. In view of above decisions,
when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically stated that only in
a given case, considering the
special circumstances, the upper
age limit can be relaxed and as in
the instant case, the
advertisement for recruitment to
the post of Vidhayasahayak was
issued in the year 2022 and
Government Resolution dated
30.07.2024 indicates that even in
the year 2024 also such
advertisement for recruitment to
the post of Vidhyasahayak was
issued and learned advocate Mr.
Chudasama also could not deny the
aforesaid fact which would
indicate that the recruitment
process for appointment to the
post of Vidhyasahayak is a regular
process that Government is carried
out every year, no exceptional
case is made out or no case is
made out by learned advocate Mr.
Chudasama to indicate that there
is any delay in issuing the
advertisement by the State
Government once the number of
posts fell vacant."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1265/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
10. In view of the foregoing reasons, we
do not see any reason to interfere in the
impugned judgment and order. Hence, the
advertisement for recruitment to the post
of Vidhya Sahayak issued by respondents is
in regular course of its recruitment
process and the appellants have failed to
make out any special case for age
relaxation which may be granted by the
respondents.
11. Appeal therefore, being devoid of any
merit, is dismissed.
12. Civil Application also stands disposed
of accordingly.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
RAGHUNATH R NAIR
