CHANDAN KUMAR vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION on 30 October 2026

1. CHANDAN KUMAR S/o PARAS NATH BHAGAT AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O WARD NO.16, PHD COLONY, ADARSH NAGAR, NEAR SP AWAS, DISTRICT ARARIA, BIHAR-854311

2. PUNEET KUMAR VOHARA S/O SH. SHANTI SAWROOP VOHRA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS AND 9 MONTHS R/O H.NO.991, NATHU COLONY, NATHU PURA, GALI NO.8, NEAR SHIV MANDIR, BURARI, NEW DELHI-110084

3. VIVEK SINGH S/O SH.PATIRAM SINGH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS AND 2 MONTHS R/O 12A, RAHUL NAGAR, MAU ROAD, P.O. DAYAL BAGH, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH-282005 ..Applicant(s)

(By Advocates: Mr. Vansh Malhotra)

Versus

1. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110069

2. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, 5TH LEVEL, C-WING, DELHI SECRETARIAT, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

3. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION, ROOM NO. 159, 1ST FLOOR, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI-110054

...Respondent(s)

(By Advocate: Mr. R V Sinha with Mr. Harsh Verma)

O R D E R(Oral) Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J) The applicants, three in number, who are practising advocates, are seeking one-time age relaxation in respect of the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), advertised by the UPSC vide Advertisement No. 11/2026.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants, who had been preparing for the said examination, have been rendered overage due to the delay at the end of the respondents. He submits that the advertisement was initially notified by the UPSC vide Advertisement No. 3/2025 on 10.04.2025. However, the earlier recruitment process was either cancelled or withdrawn and the post was ultimately re-notified on 10.09.2026. By the time of the fresh notification, the applicants had become overage. Hence, the present OA has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to consider their candidature by granting them one-time age relaxation of up to five years.

3. Mr. R. V. Sinha, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the UPSC.

4. At the outset, he raises a preliminary objection and submits that the OA itself is not maintainable, as the main relief and the interim relief sought therein are similar.

5. Heard the rival parties and perused the documents on record. SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

6. In our opinion, no ground or cause of action is made out for interfering with the selection process. The applicants are independent practising advocates and, merely because they were preparing for the said examination pursuant to the earlier advertisement, no vested right accrues in their favour to claim age relaxation in the subsequent recruitment process. The recruitment process is within the domain of the respondents, and the decision to grant age relaxation cannot be directed in the absence of any legal entitlement or demonstrated arbitrariness.

7. Further, granting the applicants the sought relaxation of up to five years at this stage would amount to altering the eligibility conditions prescribed for the recruitment. Interference at this stage, in the absence of any illegality or violation of a statutory right, would open a Pandora's box.

8. We, therefore, find no infringement of any fundamental or legal right of the applicants warranting interference by this Tribunal.

9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this OA is dismissed in limine. Pending MAs, if any, are also dismissed. No costs.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member(A) Member(J) /ss/ SOURJYA SOBHANIYA