Sandeep Santosh Vs National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra & Ors.

In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the notification issued by the respondents dated 21.07.2017 (Annexure P-8) Ministry of Human Resource Developement (Department of Higher Education) and the consequent notice issued on 28.11.2017(Annexure P-10) National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, by which, the petitioner, who is 46 years old and working in the existing 3-tier cadre structure as Assistant Professor in pay band of Rs.15600-39100, having AGP of Rs.8,000/- is not being mapped at the level of Associate Professor with AGP of Rs. 9500/- in the new 4-tier cadre only because the petitioner is being less than 50 years of age. As per the said notification which was only restricted to an employee who has attained the age of 50 years.

¶19

ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.23 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-3878-2018 (O&M)

¶21

2

¶22

A prayer of the petitioner is that once the relaxation clause grant the discretion to relax any qualification, restricting the jurisdiction to invoke such relaxation clause only qua the employees who are above 50 years is not made out and a relaxation should be granted to the petitioner as well so as to be mapped into the Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs.9500/-.

¶23

Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite of grant of AGP of Rs.9500/-, but, respondent had the jurisdiction to grant the relaxation to the petitioner keeping in view the rule governing the issue but, the said relaxation clause is not being invoked on the ground that the respondents have decide the same will only be invoked in case, the employees seeking relaxation has already attained the age of 50 years. Learned counsel submits that there is no co-relation of fixing the minimum age of 50 years to invoke the relaxation clause so as to deny the benefit to the petitioner who is 46 years of age.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents on the other hand submits that firstly, once the petitioner concede that he is not eligible to get the relief under rules governing the issue, no claim can be raised as a matter of right to grant him the relaxation as relaxation can not be claimed as a matter of right. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents further submits that though, the rules grant the power to relax the qualification to the competent authority but in order to avoid any pick and choose, even terms and conditions have been put for invoking such discretionary clause to relax the qualification, hence, fixing of 50 years of age so as to invoke the relaxation clause, is putting fetters by the competent authority on its own hence, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance.

¶25

ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.23 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-3878-2018 (O&M)

¶27

3

¶28

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their able assistance.

¶29

The first question which arises is whether, once an employee who concede before the Court that he is not eligible to grant the benefit under the rules governing the issue, can claim relaxation as a matter of right even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the relaxation can be granted to the employee who is 46 years old. The law on the issue is settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5207 of 2022 titled as State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Shanti Devi . The relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:

¶30

“15. In the present case, the State uniformly applied the prescribed age limit of 50 years to all applicants considered under Rule 5(4) (ii) read with Rule 15B of the UP Service Rules of 1992. On the direction of the Single Judge of the High Court on 11 April 2018, the State applied its mind and considered the representation for the grant of an age relaxation to the respondent twice — on 3 October 2018 and on 13 November 2018. In exercise of its discretionary power, the appellant decided that the respondent was not eligible to be granted the benefit of an age relaxation. No individual candidate can claim a vested right to age relaxation which lies in the discretion of the appointing authority. The respondent cannot claim age relaxation under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992 as a matter of right. Eligibility criteria should be uniform and there cannot be scope of arbitrary selections. A candidate cannot have a vested right to claim an exemption from a uniformly applicable criterion. A selective grant of an age relaxation will cause serious prejudice in the process of selection and render the process arbitrary.”

¶31

The above judgment which have been reproduced clearly go to

¶32

show that relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the same is

¶33

ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.23 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CWP-3878-2018 (O&M)

¶35

4

¶36

only a discretion with the competent authority envisaged under the rule to exercise such jurisdiction. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that the clause of relaxation should be invoked to declare the petitioner eligible, and that as a matter of right cannot be accepted.

¶37

Further, the challenge at the hands of the petitioner is to clause where even while invoking the jurisdiction qua the relaxation to be granted, certain terms and conditions have been put including a condition that the relaxation clause can only be invoked for an employee who has attained the age of 50 years. This only restrict the discretion to avoid pick and choose. Further, the authority to exercise the jurisdiction to relax the qualification can fix the terms and conditions for invoking such clause. Merely that the terms and conditions fixed for invoking the relaxation clause excludes the

¶38

grant of such benefits to the petitioner, the same cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal rather, the same decides the issue without their being any pick and choose even while exercising discretion.

¶39

Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶40

Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stand disposed of.

¶41

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

¶42

July 16, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) anil JUDGE

¶43

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶44

ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.23 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sandeep Santosh v. National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Santosh v. National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority (Now Hsvp) and Others Vs Shakuntla and Another

Raj Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Haryana and Others Vs Sarla

Municipal Corporation Batala and Another Vs Deepak Kumar and Others

Mahabir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and Another Vs Dharmender and Another