Court rules that recommendations to grant COVID–19 health workers additional preference or age relaxation do not override specific government notifications or recruitment rules unless formally adopted by the relevant administration. Judgment affirms prior approach on strict adherence to eligibility criteria, and will serve as binding authority within the Calcutta High Court and persuasive value elsewhere in public sector recruitment matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP.CT/42/2025 of SMTI.R.CHITRA Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCP0008222025 |
| Date of Registration | 24-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR, HON’BLE JUSTICE ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Circuit Bench at Port Blair |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Central Administrative Tribunal (Kolkata Bench, Port Blair Circuit) order |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Public Employment / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether age relaxation preference for contractual/voluntary/covid-worker service applies strictly as per notified government policies, and whether central ministry recommendations are binding unless formally adopted. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that age relaxation in government recruitment is governed entirely by the specific recruitment notification and allied circulars issued by the appointing authority. Recommendation letters from the central government do not confer enforceable rights unless expressly adopted by the concerned administration. Service rendered outside the scope specified in the notification—such as voluntary, private, or municipal council service—cannot be counted towards age relaxation unless specifically mentioned. Preference for COVID–19 service may only be invoked after meeting basic eligibility as per rules. The Tribunal and government were correct in holding the petitioner ineligible after computation as per her own documents and the governing notifications. Allegations of discrimination were unsubstantiated. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Recruitment notifications and circulars issued by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration; Ministry of Health & Family Welfare letter dated 3 May 2021 (held to be recommendatory, not mandatory). |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, an experienced contractual nurse serving during the COVID–19 pandemic, was deemed ineligible for regular appointment as Nursing Officer due to being over age even after counting eligible contract service duration per government rules. Her claims for relaxing age for voluntary, private or municipal service were rejected, and notification–based calculation was strictly applied. The Tribunal dismissed her application, which was affirmed by the High Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court; binding on administrative authorities in Andaman & Nicobar Islands for recruitment matters |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Central Administrative Tribunals in analogous service law disputes |
| Distinguishes |
|
| Follows | Central Administrative Tribunal recruitment rules adherence; affirms consistent approach to notified age relaxation criteria |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Strict adherence to recruitment notifications/circulars is reaffirmed; age relaxation cannot be claimed for periods of voluntary, private, or municipal service unless the notification/circular expressly allows for it.
- Central government recommendations (e.g., for COVID–19 health workers) are not binding unless specifically adopted by the recruiting authority or administration.
- Even if a candidate qualifies in the written examination, basic eligibility (including age) is non–negotiable; permission to appear in the test by interim order does not estop the authority from enforcing eligibility requirements.
- Establishes that preferential treatment for COVID–19 service arises only after satisfying basic eligibility as per rules.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first recited the background: contractual health worker sought regular appointment and claimed age relaxation covering both her government and non-government service.
- The relevant recruitment notification and government circulars specified that only certain contractual service periods in government health roles counted for age relaxation—voluntary, private, or municipal service was excluded.
- Detailed computation of petitioner’s age and relevant eligible service was tabulated; her eligible contract service was less than her over–age period.
- Previous interim orders permitting the petitioner to write the examination did not waive or modify the basic eligibility bar.
- The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare’s letter (3 May 2021) recommending preference for COVID–19 workers was only a suggestion, not adopted by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration; thus, it created no enforceable right.
- Comparison with other cases (Sanjay Kumar, Ranjeet Singh, Vinod Kumar Sharma, et al.) showed those involved different factual situations (e.g., regularization or retention after termination), or applied to contractual retention rather than eligibility for regular appointment.
- No evidence was produced by the petitioner of other ineligible or over–age candidates being appointed irregularly.
- The Tribunal’s and authorities’ consistent rejection of the petitioner’s eligibility was thus found legally sound, and all grounds urged by the petitioner were rejected.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Tribunal’s order suffers from illegality and errors.
- Age relaxation per the Ministry’s notification was not given.
- Service as nursing staff, including during COVID–19, and under municipal council, should have been counted.
- Others allegedly over age were appointed.
- Appearing in the test should mean age bar is a non-issue.
- Tribunal failed to consider government notifications and case law.
Respondent
- Petitioner’s service was evaluated per documents; age relaxation for eligible government contractual service was granted.
- Even after such relaxation, she remained over age.
- Voluntary, NGO, or municipal service not eligible for relaxation per notification.
- No proof of discrimination; no evidence of others being illegally appointed.
- Judgments cited by petitioner are factually distinct.
Factual Background
Vacancies for Nursing Officer posts were notified in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands; the maximum age was 30. The petitioner, a long–serving contractual nurse who had worked during COVID–19, applied but was found over–age after calculation of eligible contract service under relevant circulars. Her appeal to the Central Administrative Tribunal was rejected, as her service outside government contract roles (municipal, private, voluntary) was ineligible. Interim orders allowed her to sit for the test, but following the full process, her eligibility was again rejected. The Calcutta High Court upheld this approach.
Statutory Analysis
The Court analyzed the recruitment notification, which set the maximum age and prescribed that only contractual service in government health departments counted for relaxation. The Andaman & Nicobar Administration’s circulars were strictly interpreted; they did not extend to voluntary, municipal or private/NGO service. The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare’s letter (3 May 2021) was held to be a recommendatory communication, not a binding or enforceable norm, unless formally adopted by the relevant administration. Articles 14 and 16 were invoked to ensure fair consideration.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded; the decision is unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
None noted; proceedings followed regular channels through first the Tribunal and then the High Court, including tabulated consideration of service history and explicit reasoning in the speaking order.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law regarding strict application of recruitment notifications for age relaxation affirmed.