CAT Jammu Dismisses Age Relaxation Pleas for J&K Police Sub-Inspector Recruitment, Vacates Interim Orders

Hundreds of overage candidates sought relaxation in the 28-year upper age limit for J&K Police Sub-Inspector posts; CAT Jammu found no arbitrariness and dismissed all seven connected applications.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, on 28 May 2026 dismissed seven connected Original Applications filed by a large number of candidates from across the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir who had challenged the upper age limit of 28 years prescribed for the post of Sub-Inspector in the J&K Police under Advertisement Notification No. 02 of 2024 dated 22 November 2024. The Bench of Mr. Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member, and Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, held that the age prescription was a policy decision with rational nexus to the nature of the post and that neither delay in advertisement nor hardship to overage aspirants could justify judicial rewriting of recruitment conditions. All interim orders permitting provisional participation in the selection process were simultaneously vacated.

The Recruitment and the Age Dispute

The Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Board issued Advertisement Notification No. 02 of 2024 on 22 November 2024, advertising 669 posts of Sub-Inspector in the J&K Police. The advertisement fixed the upper age limit at 18 to 28 years for the Open Merit category and certain others, with a limit of 30 years for in-service police personnel.

The applicants — domiciles and permanent residents of the Union Territory spread across districts including Anantnag, Baramulla, Kupwara, Poonch, Rajouri, Doda, Ramban, Kathua, Samba, Udhampur, Budgam, Pulwama, Shopian, Ganderbal, Kulgam, and Jammu — contended that they were otherwise eligible but had crossed the prescribed upper age limit. Their applications were filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The core grievance was that the previous advertisement for Sub-Inspector posts had been issued in 2021 and the present one came only on 22 November 2024 — a gap of more than three years. The applicants argued that this delay was attributable to the respondents and that candidates who would have been within the age limit in 2021 had become overage by 2024 through no fault of their own.

What the Applicants Sought

The reliefs varied slightly across the seven OAs. OA 1442/2024 and OA 1468/2024 sought relaxation up to a maximum age of 35 years. OA 1453/2024 sought relaxation up to 30 years. OA 1456/2024 sought relaxation up to 32 years. All applications sought acceptance of application forms by the JKSSB and permission to participate in all stages of the selection process.

The applicants also pointed to representations submitted to the competent authority, including one dated 9 December 2024, on which no speaking order had been passed. They relied on Rule 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which empowers the Government to relax rules in individual cases of hardship.

A further argument was drawn from the 2021 recruitment cycle, where the upper age limit had been enhanced from 28 to 30 years. The applicants contended that similar treatment should be extended in the present recruitment, particularly given the longer gap between the two advertisements.

The Respondents’ Position

The respondents — the UT of J&K through the Home Department, the Commissioner Secretary of the General Administrative Department, the Director General of Police, and the JKSSB — opposed all seven applications.

On the 2021 precedent, the respondents were specific: the enhancement of the upper age limit from 28 to 30 years in that cycle was a one-time exception granted because recruitment could not take place during the preceding two years owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. That relaxation had been granted after recommendation of Police Headquarters, consultation with the Home Department, and approval of the competent authority through S.O. 420 dated 10 December 2021. The respondents submitted that a special relaxation granted in exceptional pandemic circumstances could not automatically be extended to subsequent recruitment processes and could not be claimed as a matter of right.

The respondents also explained the structural change in recruitment: prior to S.O. 214 of 2021 dated 1 July 2021, recruitment to Sub-Inspector posts was conducted by the Police Department itself under Rule 172 of the Police Rules. After that order, the function was transferred to the JKSSB. The present advertisement was the first under the new arrangement, and the process had been conducted strictly in accordance with applicable recruitment rules.

On the age limit itself, the respondents submitted that the post of Sub-Inspector in the Police is a disciplined and physically demanding post and that the age prescription reflected the nature of duties attached to it. No legal, statutory, or constitutional right of the applicants had been violated.

How the Tribunal Reasoned

The Tribunal took up all seven OAs together, noting that the issue involved was substantially identical and arose from the same advertisement and selection process.

On the central question of age relaxation, the Tribunal held that the prescription of a maximum age limit of 28 years in Advertisement Notification No. 02 of 2024 was a policy decision having rational nexus with the nature of the post. It found no arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides, or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that delay in advertisement invalidated the prescribed age cut-off. It held that a candidate who becomes overage cannot insist upon age relaxation merely because recruitment did not take place earlier, and that delay in advertisement or recruitment does not by itself invalidate the prescribed cut-off date or age limit.

On the 2021 precedent, the Tribunal accepted the respondents’ explanation that the earlier relaxation was a one-time exception on account of the COVID-19 pandemic and could not be treated as a binding precedent or claimed as a matter of right in subsequent recruitments.

The Tribunal also addressed the reliance on representations. It held that submission of a representation does not create a right to relaxation and that, at the highest, the representation may be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. The Tribunal was clear that it could not itself grant relaxation or direct the respondents to amend the advertisement.

On the prayer for a fresh advertisement with an enhanced upper age limit, the Tribunal declined, holding that such a direction would amount to rewriting the recruitment rules and advertisement and would adversely affect the rights of eligible candidates who had applied in terms of the notified conditions.

The Tribunal observed that “sympathy for overage aspirants, however genuine, cannot override statutory and policy requirements.” It noted that the High Court of J&K and Ladakh had also vacated interim directions in similar matters in WP(C) No. 3049/2024 read with WP(C) No. 28/2025, and that this Tribunal had taken a consistent view in T.A. No. 251/2025.

Order

All seven Original Applications were dismissed as devoid of merit. The challenge to Advertisement Notification No. 02 of 2024 dated 22 November 2024, in so far as it prescribes the maximum age limit of 28 years for the post of Sub-Inspector in J&K Police, was rejected.

All interim orders permitting participation of the applicants in the selection process, or directing their results to be kept in sealed cover, were vacated. Any participation pursuant to such interim orders was held not to confer any right, equity, or claim in favour of the applicants.

The Tribunal, however, reserved liberty to the applicants to submit individual or collective representations before the competent authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. If such representations are submitted, the competent authority is directed to consider and decide them by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with applicable rules, policy, and law, preferably within six weeks thereafter.

The Tribunal clarified that this direction is only for consideration of the representation and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion in favour of grant of relaxation. The recruitment process may proceed in accordance with law and shall not be stalled on account of the pendency or consideration of such representations. No order as to costs was made.