2026:JHHC:15341 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2211 of 2026 ….….. 1. Amit Kumar, aged about 47 years, Son of Arun Kumar, Resident of Makatpur, P.O-Giridih, P.S.-Giridih (T), District-Giridih, Jharkhand - 815301. 2. Anil Kumar Vishwakarma, aged about 45 years, Son of T. N Vishwakarma, Resident of at Marpoka, P.O- Doranda, P.S.-Giridih, District-Giridih, Jharkhand - 825412. 3. Bina Shandilya, aged about 47 years, Wife of Santosh Mohan Kaushik, Resident of Village-Salaiya, P.O-Barwa, P.S.-Barkatha, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand - 825323. 4. Sarfraj Alam, aged about 45 years, Son of Hasmuddin Ansari, Resident of Near Zama Masjid Mohalla, Pundag, P.O.-Pundag, P.S.- Jagarnnathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834004. 5. Md. Parwej Alam, aged about 45 years, Son of Akhtar Ansari, Resident of Hazi Nizamuddin Colony, P.O-Kokdoro, P.S.-Pithoria, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834006. 6. Ramavtar Mahto, aged bout 42 years, Son of Birbal Mahto, Resident of at Sandi, P.O-Bharechnagar, P.S.-Mandu, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand - 829117. 7. Faisal Al Sayeed, aged about 42 years, Son of Sayeed Ahmad, Resident of Azad Banglow, Itki Thakurgaon, P.O-Itki, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand - 835301. 8. Manoranjan Ghosh, aged about 41 years, Son of Samir Kumar Ghosh, Resident of at New Town, P.O. & P.S.-Jamtara, District-Jamtara, Jharkhand - 815351. 9. Deepak Kumar, aged about 43 years, Son of Chandera Deo Sahu, Resident of Village-Pahra, P.O- Hewai, P.S.-Keredari, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand - 825311. 10. Sumit Kumar, aged about 41 years, Son of Late Rajendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-Nawada, P.O.-Banha, P.S.-Katkamdag, Disrict-Hazaribag, Jharkhand - 825302. 11. Swati Kumari, aged about 45 years, Daughter of Raj Kapoor Sahu, Resident of College Road, Bundu, P.O. & P.S.-Bundu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand - 835204. 12. Damodar Prasad Sahu, aged about 41 years, Son of Muni Prasad Sahu, Resident of Village-Kanda, P.O.- Kanda, P.S.-Nawa Bazar, District-Palamu, Jharkhand - 822124. 2026:JHHC:15341 13. Punam Kumari, aged about 46 years, Daughter of Late Suresh Ram, Resident of Kalal Toli, Main Road, P.O. & P.S.-Lower Bazar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834001. 14. Amar Sukuwan Samad, aged about 47 years, Son of Late James Samad, Resident of H. No. 1, Robertnagar, Parsudih, P.O. & P.S.-Tatanagar, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand - 831002. 15. Sarita Kumari, aged about 44 years, Daughter of Balram Bhagat, Resident of Village-Dhamni Bazar, P.O- Dhamni Bazar, P.S.-Sunderpahari, District-Godda, Jharkhand - 816102. 16. Rajesh Prasad Verma, aged about 41 years, Son of Tarkeshwar Prasad Verma, Resident of Village-Koimara, P.O.-Udnabad, P.S.-Giridih, District-Giridih, Jharkhand - 815302. 17. Avinash Kumar Burnwal, aged about 42 years, Son of Bhuneshwar Prasad Burnwal, Resident of Village & P.O.-Sudamdih River Side New Market, P.S.- Sudamdih, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand 828126. 18. Himanshu Kumar, aged about 42 years, Son of Late Nandkishor Agarwal, Resident of Village-Gadi, P.O.- Motileda, P.S.-Bengabad, District-Giridih, Jharkhand - 815302. 19. Kiran Mala, aged about 45 years, Daughter of Harihar Mahto, Resident of Muri, Trila Silli, P.O. & P.S.- Silli, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 835102. 20. Tilesh Kumar Nayak, aged about 41 years, Son of Umesh Nayak, Resident of Village-Khunta, P.O.-Dantoo, P.S.-Kasmar, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand - 829121. 21. Rabindra Kumar, aged about 42 years, Son of Nanhu Ram, Resident of Village-Basobar, P.O. & P.S.- Daru, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand - 825313. 22. Ashok Kumar Toppo, aged about 48 years, Son of Joackim Toppo, Resident of 937/Town Ranchi, Lalpur Peace Road Near Moti Khatal, P.O. & P.S.-Lalpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834001. 23. Kavita Kumari, aged about 44 years, Wife of Indrasen Bhagat, Resident of Village-Taimara, P.O.- Taimara, P.S.-Dasamfall, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand - 835204. 24. Jyoti K. Toppo, aged about 46 years, Daughter of Joackim Toppo, Resident of 937/Town Ranchi, Lalpur Peace Road Near Moti Khatal, P.O. & P.S.-Lalpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834001. 25. Manju Kumari, aged about 51 years, Daughter of Late Alakh Deo Sharma, Resident of Flat No. 402, 2026:JHHC:15341 Syndicate Colony, Near Neel Sarowar, P.O. & P.S.- Kadma, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand -831005. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S-Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administration Reforms & Rajbhasa, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through Secretary officiating at JPSC Office, Circular Road, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Circular Road, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) With W.P.(S) No. 2214 of 2026 ….….. Jyotin Prakash Kushwaha, Age- 51 years S/o- Ganesh Ram Kushwaha, Jhumra Chowk, NH-100, P.O & P.S- Tilaiya Maheshra, Distt- Hazaribag. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnnathpur, District-Ranchi 3. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), Ranchi P.O. & P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), Ranchi P.O. & P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), Ranchi P.O. & P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) With W.P.(S) No. 2115 of 2026 ….….. 1. Sweta Kumari, aged about 44 years, W/o Gopal Prasad Sahu, R/o Marwari Mohalla Pachamba, P.O. & P.S. Pachamba, District - Giridih. 2026:JHHC:15341 2. Pratyush Ranjan, aged about 45 years, S/o Sukhdeo Sahu, R/o Vill- Balumath, Ara, VTC- Ara, P.O. Ganeshpur, P.S.- Balumath, District- Latehar. 3. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, aged about 41 years, S/o Madan Mohan Gupta, R/o 240, Vill- Sarjamdih, P.O. Sarjamadih, P.S. - Ranchi, District- Ranchi. 4. Sajir Ansari, aged about 41 years, S/o Sadique Ansari, R/o Vill- Kalyanpur, P.O. Chari, P.S. Gola, District- Ramgarh. 5. Umakant Pramanik, aged about 42 years, S/o Niranjan Pramanik, R/o 80, Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District- Gumla. 6. Naresh Kumar Bhagat, aged about 43 years, S/o Shivpujan Bhagat, R/o Tetiyachak Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Kathikund, District- Dumka. 7. Avinash Kumar Mehta, aged about 41 years, S/o Lal Babu Mahto, R/o Vill Maganpur, P.O. & P.S. Maganpur, District- Ramgarh. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. - GPO, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834001. 4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. GPO, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834001. ..... Respondent(s) With W.P.(S) No. 2116 of 2026 ….….. 1. Niraj Bhagat, aged about 44 years, S/o Ramnath Bhagat, R/o L/S- 70, 1, Karthik Oraon Chowk, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. - G.P.O, Ranchi, P.S. Argora, District- Ranchi. 2.Ratnesh Dadel, aged about 45 years, S/o Herrick Dadel, R/o Near, Lala lajpat Rai Middle School, Kumhar Toli, Kadru, P.O. & P.S. Kadru, District- Ranchi. 3. Bajrang Baraik, aged about 48 years, S/o Asha Baraik, R/o Vill- Petsera, P.O. & P.S. Palkot, District- Gumla. 2026:JHHC:15341 4.Mourice Ekka, aged about 48 years, S/o Vijay Vincent Ekka, R/o Vill- Kotpal, P.O. & P.S. Narkopi, District- Ranchi. 5.Ajay Lakra, aged about 47 years, S/o Timothius Lakra, R/o Near, Father Anjel School, Dibdih, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi. 6.Bipin Kishor Khalkho, aged about 46 years, S/o Kunwar Khalkho, R/o Chitar Kota, Barka Toli, Pali, P.O. & P.S. Pali, District- Ranchi. 7.Sanjay Toppo, aged about 44 years, S/o Narayan Oraon, R/o Vill- Karamtoli, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District- Gumla. 8.Ajay Kujur, aged about 46 years, S/o Sorhai Kujur, R/o Near, I.T.I. Hehal, Itki road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi. 9.Binay Kumar Tudu, aged about 45 years, S/o Late Luxmi Ram, R/o Chiragora Hirapur, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad. 10. Scholastica Toppo, aged about 51 years, D/o Tarsicius Toppo, R/o Mahuadar, P.O. Mahuadar, P.S. Kuro Khurd, District- Latehar. 11.Taramani Kujur, aged about 47 years, W/o Santosh Kumar Khalkho, R/o House No. 32/x4A, Lane No. 4 Sarai, Tand, Morabadi, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Morabadi, District- Ranchi. 12.Kavita Kumari, aged about 44 years, W/o Sanjay Oraon, R/o Ratu Kumba Toli, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi. 13.Sanjeev Kumar Zerai, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Sachindra Singh Zerai, R/o House No 111, Harihar Singh Road, Morhabadi P.O. & P.S. Morabadi, District- Ranchi. 14.Suresh Toppo, aged about 45 years, s/o Bandhan Toppo, R/o Sneha Danru, P.O. Danru, P.S. Lohardaga, District- Lohardaga. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 5. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. - GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834001. 2026:JHHC:15341 6. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. – GPO, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834001. ..... Respondent(s) With W.P.(S) No. 2198 of 2026 ….….. 1. Sunita Kumari, aged about 44 years, Wife of Arun Ram, Resident of Barwa Toli, P.O-Lohardaga, P.S.- Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand. 2. Md. Minhaj Ansari, aged about 41 years, Son of Md. Idris, Resident of At- Chatra Road, Idgah Chowk, P.O-Sultana, P.S.-Sultana, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 3. Rani Melgandi, aged about 46 years, Wife of Sikendra Birua, Resident of Village-Pandrasali, P.O- Baralagra, P.S.-Manjhari, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 4. Shyam Sundar Manjhi, aged about 43 years, Son of Ram Prasad Manjhi, Resident of Vill- Heth Situa, P.O.- Uppersitwa, P.S.-Jama, District-Dumka, Jharkhand - 834004. 5. Sanjay Kumar Mahto, aged about 43 years, Son of Indra Mohan Mahto, Resident of East Lane of Biscuit Factory, Samlong, P.O- Namkum, P.S.-Namkum, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. Arbind Kumar Gagrai, aged bout 45 years, Son of Tarakant Gagrai, Resident of at Quarter No. 211/B/C type Sector-1, VSP Township, Ukkunagaram, P.O- Ukkunagaram, P.S.-Pedagantyada, District- Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 7. Rajendra Kumar, aged about 42 years, Son of Hemant Nayak, Resident of Chando, Upper Kulhi, P.O- Chando, P.S.-Petarwar, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. 8. Nitesh Kumar, aged about 45 years, Son of Tulsi Narayan Ram, Resident of Vill- Chandranagar, P.O.- Kubri, P.S.-Giridih, District- Giridih, Jharkhand. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S- Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2.Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administration Reforms & Rajbhasa, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2026:JHHC:15341 3.Jharkhand Public Service Commission through Secretary officiating at JPSC Office, Circular Road, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4.Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Circular Road, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) ….… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate Mr. T. Mohanta, Advocate [in W.P.S No. 2116, 2115, 2214 of 2026] Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate Mr. Kazi Asif Iqubal, Advocate Mr. Gyandev Raj, Advocate [in W.P.S No. 2198 of 2026] Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate Mr. Amartya Choubey, Advocate Mr. Shivam A. Pathak, Advocate [in W.P.S No. 2211 of 2026] Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Advocate [in W.P.S No. 2214 of 2026] For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate For the Resp.-JSSC : Mr.Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate ….….. C.A.V. ON: 21/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15 /05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. All these writ petitions raise identical questions of law, as such, the same were heard together and are decided by this common judgment with consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The lead case is W.P.(s) No.2211 of 2026 and the facts of this case would be sufficient to decide these writ petitions filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. 2026:JHHC:15341 Background: 3. All these writ petitions have been preferred for quashing Clause 6 of Resolution No. 1093 dated 21.02.2026; whereby the State Government has fixed 01.08.2022 as the cut-off date for calculation of maximum age limit, and for declaring the same ultra vires the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021. The petitioners further seek quashing of Clause 4 of Advertisement No. 05 of 2026 to the extent it adopts 01.08.2022 as the cut-off date, with a consequential direction to substitute the same with 01.08.2017/01.08.2018 for the purpose of determining upper age eligibility. Submissions of petitioners. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioners that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as “JPSC”, issued Advertisement No. 05 of 2026 for appointment to Class-II posts under different services through the Jharkhand Joint Civil Services Backlog Competitive Examination, 2025, wherein altogether 45 posts were advertised. In the said advertisement, the cut-off date for calculation of upper age limit has been fixed as 2026:JHHC:15341 01.08.2022. It was further submitted that JPSC also issued Advertisement No. 06 of 2026, being the Jharkhand Joint Civil Services Backlog Competitive Examination, 2023, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Civil Servant in the Jharkhand Finance Service, wherein the cut-off date for calculation of upper age limit was fixed as 01.08.2017. The aforesaid advertisements have been issued in terms of the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021, under which Rule 4(i) casts an obligation upon JPSC to notify vacancies every year by inviting applications from eligible candidates. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that due to non- holding of examinations on an annual basis, several otherwise eligible candidates have crossed the upper age limit for no fault of their own. The State Government itself, taking note of such non-compliance of Rule 4(i), earlier issued Notification No. 506 dated 25.01.2024 relaxing the upper age limit by treating 01.08.2017 as the relevant cut-off date. In the previous examinations issued through Advertisement No. 01 of 2021 and Advertisement No. 01 of 2024, the cut-off dates for 2026:JHHC:15341 calculation of upper age limit were fixed as 01.08.2016 and 01.08.2017 respectively. 6. However, despite the same background and despite the continuing effect of delayed/non-annual examinations, the State Government, vide Resolution No. 1093 dated 21.02.2026, has fixed 01.08.2022 as the cut- off date for calculation of maximum age limit for the present recruitment. The petitioners are aggrieved because such fixation excludes candidates who would otherwise have been eligible had the examinations been conducted regularly and in accordance with the statutory rules. 7. It has been further submitted that one of the petitioners submitted a detailed representation before the respondent authorities requesting that the cut-off date for calculation of upper age limit be relaxed and fixed as 01.08.2018 instead of 01.08.2022, so that candidates who lost their chance due to delay attributable to the respondents may not be unfairly excluded. However, no action was taken on the said representation. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary fixation of the cut-off date and the inaction of the respondents, the petitioners have been constrained to prefer the present writ applications. 2026:JHHC:15341 Submissions of State of Jharkhand: 8. Learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Piprawall representing the respondent authorities submitted that the Advertisement has been issued strictly in accordance with the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot claim age relaxation, as a matter of right. He had also submitted that the cut-off date cannot be extended to 01.08.2017/01.08.2018 merely because some relaxations were granted in earlier examinations under different circumstances and the same cannot be on mere asking of some candidate. 9. The respondents have acted uniformly and applied the same cut-off date to all candidates under the Advertisement No.05 of 2026 dated 18.03.2026. The petitioners, having crossed the prescribed age limit as per the applicable rules, cannot seek judicial intervention. 10. He lastly submitted that after the advertisement was published, the State Government took a decision to give relaxation in upper age limit and now has fixed 01.08.2022 as cut-off date. Thus, now as per the revision the cut-off date is 2022 not 2026. Conclusion: 2026:JHHC:15341 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that between the years 2021 and 2025, the JPSC conducted two Combined Civil Services Examinations, namely Advertisement No. 01 of 2021 and Advertisement No. 01 of 2024. In Advertisement No. 01 of 2021, the cut- off date for calculation of upper age limit was fixed as 01.08.2016; whereas in Advertisement No. 01 of 2024, the cut-off date was fixed as 01.08.2017. It is, therefore, evident that on earlier occasions, the respondent- JPSC/State, taking note of the delay in holding examinations, had extended the benefit of age relaxation by fixing earlier cut-off dates. 12. In the present set of writ petitions; however, the petitioners seek a direction to fix the cut-off date for calculation of upper age limit for the General Category as 01.08.2017/01.08.2018 in place of 01.08.2022 in Advertisement No. 05 of 2026 dated 18.03.2026. 13. The issue which therefore arises for consideration is whether this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere with the cut-off date fixed by the employer/appointing authority for determining the maximum age limit. 2026:JHHC:15341 14. It is settled law that fixation of a cut-off date for determining eligibility, including age eligibility, falls within the domain of the employer or rule-making authority. Unless such fixation is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational or contrary to any statutory rule, the writ court would ordinarily not substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority. 15. It is equally well settled that relaxation of upper age limit is in the nature of a concession and not an enforceable right. Such relaxation must flow from the recruitment rules, service rules, statutory provisions or a specific government decision/notification. A candidate cannot claim age relaxation merely on grounds of equity, sympathy or hardship; nor can the Court direct relaxation only because the prescribed cut-off date may operate to the disadvantage of a particular group of candidates. 16. In the present set of cases, though the petitioners have relied upon earlier advertisements where a relaxed cut-off date was adopted, the same by itself would not create a vested right in their favour to demand identical relaxation in every subsequent recruitment. Each 2026:JHHC:15341 recruitment process has to be governed by the applicable rules, advertisement and policy decision prevailing at the relevant time. In absence of any statutory mandate requiring fixation of 01.08.2017/01.08.2018 as the cut- off date for Advertisement No. 05 of 2026, the prayer of the petitioners for substitution of the cut-off date cannot be accepted merely on the ground that a different cut-off date was adopted in earlier examinations. 17. In Dr. Ami Lal Bhat (Dr) v. State of Rajasthan1 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that fixing a cutoff date is within the rule-making authority’s discretion and it is valid unless capricious or grossly unreasonable. A uniform date ensures certainty and there cannot be any wholesale relaxation because the advertisement is delayed or because the vacancy occurred earlier especially when there is no allegation of any mala fides in connection with any delay in issuing an advertisement. It would be profitable to refer paragraph nos.10 & 11 of the judgment which is extracted as under: “10…. In other words, what is contended is that if on the date when the vacancy occurred, the candidates were within the maximum age prescribed by reference to the cut-off date, then if the advertisement is delayed, their age should be considered with reference to the cut-off date of 1st January following the date of occurrence of vacancy. For example, if the vacancy has occurred on 1st of April of a given year, and the applicant would be within the maximum age on the 1st of January of the following year, then such a candidate will be considered as eligible even if the advertisement is issued not in April of that year but say February of the following 1 (1997) 6 SCC 614 2026:JHHC:15341 year. All the candidates will get age relaxation of one year. 11. In our view this kind of an interpretation cannot be given to a rule for relaxation of age. The power of relaxation is required to be exercised in public interest in a given case; as for example, if other suitable candidates are not available for the post, and the only candidate who is suitable has crossed the maximum age-limit; or to mitigate hardship in a given case. Such a relaxation in special circumstances of a given case is to be exercised by the administration after referring that case to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. There cannot be any wholesale relaxation because the advertisement is delayed or because the vacancy occurred earlier especially when there is no allegation of any mala fides in connection with any delay in issuing an advertisement. This kind of power of wholesale relaxation would make for total uncertainty in determining the maximum age of a candidate. It might be unfair to a large number of candidates who might be similarly situated, but who may not apply, thinking that they are age-barred. We fail to see how the power of relaxation can be exercised in the manner contended.” 18. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6302 of 2017 and analogous cases titled Krishna Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. after analyzing judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of cut-off date has held as under: “XXVIII. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the law can be summarized as under: - (i) The choice of date as a basis for classification fixed by the legislature or its delegate cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary, even if, no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless, it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances, (ii) The cut-off date, to attain the minimum or maximum age, must be specific and determinate on a particular date and it cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date, because it may lead to consequences, anomalies and uncertainties. (iii) Mere errors of government in fixing of cut-off date, which may be unjust and oppressive are not subject to judicial review, it is only its palpable arbitrary exercise which can be declared void. (iv) It is the discretion of the rule-making authority or employer, to fix a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post and it cannot be, per se arbitrary, unless the cut-off date, is as wide off the mark, as to make it wholly unreasonable. (v) A cut-off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision. As soon as a cut- off date is fixed there will be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut-off date and some persons fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date and the persons falling on the wrong side cannot challenge the same, unless, it is as capricious or whimsical as to be wholly unreasonable. (vi)There cannot be any “wholesale relaxation” on the ground that the advertisement is delayed unless, there is an allegation of any mala fides in connection with delay in issuing an advertisement. This wholesale relaxation would make total uncertainty in determining the maximum age of a candidate and it might be unfair for large number of similarly situated candidates who may not apply, thinking that they are age-barred. (vii) A cut-off date can be provided in terms of the provisions of statute or executive order and if any hardship is caused to some persons or a section of society that may by itself cannot be aground for holding that the cut-off date so fixed is ultra vires to Article 14 of the constitution. (viii) The fixing of cut-off dates is within the domain of the executive authority. There 2026:JHHC:15341 may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a particular cut-off date is fixed. These considerations can be financial, administrative or other considerations. Therefore, the court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut-off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary.” 19. The claim advanced by the petitioners is unreasonable and unsustainable. The petitioners have failed to bring on record any material to demonstrate mala-fide action, arbitrariness or colourable exercise of power on the part of the respondents in fixing the cut-off date. In the absence of any such pleadings or proof of malice, this Court cannot interfere with a policy decision taken by the competent authority. 20. It is also an admitted position that the applicable Rules do not contain any provision mandating relaxation of upper age limit in the manner sought by the petitioners. Fixation of the cut-off date for determining age eligibility exclusively falls within the domain of the employer, namely the State Government; unless such fixation is shown to be contrary to law or manifestly arbitrary, the same cannot be substituted by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 21. In the present set of cases, the advertisement clearly prescribes 01.08.2022 as the cut-off date. The petitioners, in effect, seeks relaxation of age by substitution of the said date. It is well settled that 2026:JHHC:15341 whenever a cut-off date is fixed, some candidates may inevitably fall on the wrong side of it; however, that by itself does not render the cut-off date illegal or arbitrary. No cut-off date can satisfy every individual candidate; nor can this Court examine the issue from the standpoint of individual hardship. 22. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with or modify the cut-off date fixed by the respondents in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, all these writ petitions, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Pending IAs, if any, are closed. No cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15/05/2026 Amardeep/ AFR Uploaded on 23.05.2026