The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that age relaxation granted by the State Government in response to the Covid-19 pandemic is a temporary executive concession, not a vested right, and cannot be invoked beyond its expressly stipulated expiry date. This ruling reinforces the principle that recruitment criteria, once lawfully published, must be applied uniformly without retrospective extension of expired concessions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sapna Sisodiyaa, a divorced woman with the requisite educational qualifications, sought to appear in the Mains Examination of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) Grade-II, 2025, conducted by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Her application was rejected on the ground that she exceeded the maximum age limit of 45 years for female candidates as stipulated in the advertisement dated 28.01.2025. She challenged this rejection as arbitrary and discriminatory, contending that she was entitled to a three-year age relaxation previously granted by the General Administration Department.
Key Facts
- The petitioner qualified for the Preliminary/Qualifying Examination of the High School Teacher Eligibility Test in 2023.
- The State issued an advertisement dated 31.12.2024 for the Mains Examination of TET Grade-II, 2024, with the last date for application fixed as 11.02.2025 and examination scheduled for 20.03.2025.
- Clause 6.2 of the advertisement dated 28.01.2025 prescribed a minimum age of 21 years as on 01.01.2024 and a maximum age of 45 years for female candidates, subject to instructions of the General Administration Department.
- The General Administration Department issued an order dated 18.09.2022 extending the maximum age limit by three years, but explicitly limited this relaxation to recruitment processes concluding by December 2023.
- The petitioner’s application was rejected online on the grounds of age bar, despite her having benefited from the same relaxation during the Preliminary Examination.
- The petitioner had not participated in any recruitment counseling following her qualification in the 2020 TET, which was the last recruitment cycle eligible for the 2022 relaxation.
Procedural History
- 28.01.2025: Advertisement for TET Grade-II Mains Examination issued by respondent No.4.
- 11.02.2025: Deadline for submission of application forms.
- 15.02.2025: Petitioner’s application rejected by online portal due to age bar.
- 22.02.2025: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9946 of 2025 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore.
- 25.08.2025: Division Bench of Jabalpur Bench delivered judgment in Onkar Tiwari v. State of M.P., addressing identical issues.
- 23.03.2026: Hearing concluded before Justice Jai Kumar Pillai.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- Argued that the 18.09.2022 circular granting three-year age relaxation was binding and should apply to all recruitment cycles initiated after its issuance.
- Contended that since she qualified in the 2023 Preliminary Examination, she was entitled to the same relaxation for the Mains Examination.
- Asserted that denial of relaxation violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution by being arbitrary and discriminatory.
- Relied on the principle of legitimate expectation and equal treatment.
For the Respondents
- Maintained that the 18.09.2022 circular was a temporary, time-bound concession issued in response to pandemic-related disruptions.
- Clarified that the relaxation was applicable only to recruitment drives concluding by December 2023.
- Stated that the 2025 advertisement was a fresh recruitment process, and no subsequent order had extended the relaxation period.
- Emphasized that recruitment rules are governed by statutory and administrative policy, not by prior eligibility alone.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept her application, grant a three-year age relaxation, and allow her to appear in the Mains Examination of TET Grade-II, 2025.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a candidate who qualified in a prior Teacher Eligibility Test is entitled to claim a three-year age relaxation under a 2022 government circular for a recruitment drive held in 2025, when the circular explicitly limited its applicability to processes concluding by December 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the principle of legitimate expectation and equitable treatment, arguing that since the relaxation was granted during the Preliminary Examination, it should extend to the Mains Examination. He cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to assert that administrative policies must be applied consistently. He further contended that the State’s refusal to extend the relaxation was arbitrary and violated Article 14, especially since the petitioner had no opportunity to participate in the 2022 recruitment cycle due to administrative delays.
For the Respondent
The State countered that age relaxation is a discretionary executive policy, not a legal entitlement. It emphasized that the 18.09.2022 circular was expressly limited to recruitment processes ending by December 2023, and that the 2025 advertisement was a distinct recruitment cycle. The State relied on Onkar Tiwari v. State of M.P. to show that the same issue had been conclusively decided, and that the petitioner’s failure to participate in the 2022 counseling barred any claim to retrospective benefit.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the 18.09.2022 circular and its temporal scope. It noted that the circular was issued as a temporary relief measure during the pandemic and contained an explicit time limit: "applicable up to December 2023." The Court held that such concessions, while beneficial, are not automatic rights and cannot be extended beyond their stated expiry.
"The relaxation in any provision cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is always the discretion of the government to relax any criteria in any particular test. When the Government has decided that the relaxation will be applicable only once and that too up to December 2023, petitioners cannot claim the same and challenge clause 6.2 and 6.3 of the advertisement..."
The Court further observed that the petitioner’s qualification in the 2023 Preliminary Examination did not create a vested right to age relaxation in a subsequent recruitment cycle. The 2025 advertisement was a new, independent process governed by its own terms. The Division Bench in Onkar Tiwari had already held that the relaxation was not meant to be perpetual and that candidates who failed to avail of it during the designated window could not invoke it later.
The Court rejected the argument of legitimate expectation, noting that the petitioner had no reasonable expectation to benefit from an expired policy. The State’s decision to limit the relaxation to a specific timeframe was a valid exercise of administrative discretion, and there was no evidence of arbitrariness or discrimination.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the three-year age relaxation under the 18.09.2022 circular, as it expired in December 2023 and was not extended for the 2025 recruitment cycle. No order as to costs was made. The rejection of her application was upheld as lawful and in accordance with the advertisement’s terms.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Age Relaxation Is Time-Bound, Not Automatic
- Practitioners must verify the exact validity period of any government relaxation before filing challenges.
- Candidates cannot claim benefits under expired circulars, even if they were previously eligible.
- Administrative concessions are discretionary and do not create enforceable rights beyond their stated duration.
Qualification Does Not Override Current Eligibility Criteria
- Clearing a preliminary test does not entitle a candidate to bypass age, qualification, or other eligibility conditions in subsequent recruitment drives.
- Each advertisement constitutes a fresh invitation to apply, governed by its own terms.
- Courts will not rewrite recruitment rules to accommodate candidates who failed to act within the prescribed window.
Judicial Deference to Administrative Policy
- Courts will not interfere with time-bound executive decisions unless there is clear arbitrariness or violation of constitutional rights.
- The burden lies on the petitioner to prove that the relaxation was either extended or that the State acted mala fide.
- This judgment reinforces that recruitment processes must be conducted as advertised, ensuring fairness and predictability.
