Let us do a small exercise. No prior knowledge of law is required, only a little presence of mind.
If you are tired, bookmark this and come back to it later. It is a surprisingly good way to test whether the litigation bug has bitten you yet or not.
Below is a prayer copied from a real case file:
“By way of the present O.A., the applicants have sought the following relief:
(i) To quash and set aside the Advertisement dated XYZ, to the extent that the same does not incorporate the age relaxation clause for the post of teacher, as per the directions of the Ld. Tribunal passed in a previous order dated ABC; and/or in the alternative, direct the respondents to treat the age relaxation clause as a one-time measure, deemed incorporated and read into the advertisement, in compliance with the previous order dated ABC.”
If that sounds wordy (I know it does), here is the simpler version of what the applicant is essentially saying:
“The Tribunal directed age relaxation in an earlier teacher recruitment case. Therefore the new advertisement should contain that relaxation.”
Now pause for a moment. Is this a good relief?
If your instinct says yes, that is perfectly understandable. But if your instinct says no, you have already spotted a subtle yet important legal weakness.
Where the Argument Goes Wrong
At first glance the argument appears logical: if the Tribunal earlier directed age relaxation, the administration should reflect that direction in subsequent recruitment. However, there is a structural legal problem. Every recruitment advertisement is a separate administrative action. Each advertisement therefore creates a fresh cause of action. By anchoring the entire challenge to the earlier Tribunal order, the lawyer framed the case as follows:
“The Tribunal earlier directed age relaxation; therefore the new advertisement must incorporate it.”
In effect, the application attempts to extend or enforce the earlier Tribunal order. That framing is legally weak. Why? Because it shifts the case away from a challenge to the legality of the new advertisement, and closer to an argument that the respondents failed to comply with the earlier order.
Once the case is framed this way, the Tribunal can easily respond:
“If you wish to pursue enforcement of the earlier order, you must seek the appropriate remedy.”
Instead of examining the legality of the advertisement itself, the Tribunal can redirect the applicant elsewhere. And that is exactly what happened.
What the Applicants Should Have Argued
The challenge should have been directed squarely at the new advertisement. A better formulation might read something like this:
“To quash and set aside the Advertisement dated XYZ insofar as it fails to grant age relaxation to candidates similarly situated to those covered by the Tribunal’s earlier order dated ABC, the said omission being arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the applicable recruitment rules.”
Here the focus is clear: The advertisement itself is under challenge. The earlier order merely supports the argument.
A Simple Courtroom Trick
There is a useful advocacy habit that can help avoid this problem. Always structure your argument in two layers. First, directly challenge the new administrative action. Second, use earlier orders or judgments only as persuasive precedent.
When you do this, a court cannot easily sidestep the central issue. The judge must confront the question you are actually asking. And in litigation, forcing the right question onto the table is often half the battle.
Often, a case does not fail because the law is weak, but because the relief was framed poorly. Which is why it helps to bring a good night’s rest to work, you would be amazed at how much simpler things begin to look.
With that, the exercise for today ends, see you on another one super soon!
Aakrishti Kumar 
Leave a comment