2026:JHHC:5659 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1000 of 2026 ----- 1. Krishna Kant Singh, aged about 46 years, S/o Janardan Prasad Singh, R/o Q. No. B-III/497, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand; 2. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 37 years, S/o Tribhuwan Prasad, R/o Vill- Sarhul Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand; 3. Amardeep Kumar, aged about 43 years, S/o Dahan Prasad, R/o Vill- Sakhiya, P.O.- Oriya, P.S.- Muffasil, Dist.-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; 4. Binay Singh, aged about 39 years, S/o Bilash Singh, R/o Vill Dulsulma, P.O. & P.S.- Satbarwa, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand; 5. Manoj Kumar, aged about 40 years, S/o Kameshwar Yadav, R/o Vill- Baero Kala, P.O.- Berokala, P.S.- Barakata, Dist.- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; 6. Sheo Shankar Sau, aged about 42 years, S/o Tirtha Basi Sau, R/o Vill- Near Children Park, Patpur, P.O. & P.S.- Baharagora, Dist.- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand; 7. Sudhanshu Kumar, aged about 41 years, S/o Raghoram Singh, R/o Vill- Khaira, P.O.- Takia Bazar, P.S.- Sasaram, Dist.- Rohtas, Bihar. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary at project Building, P.O. + PS.- Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand (834004). 2. The Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Ground Floor, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand (834002). 3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at project Building, P.O. + PS.- Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand (834004). 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S- Lalpur, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S Lalpur, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand. …Respondent(s). ------ With W.P.(S) No. 1152 of 2026 1. Vijay Kumar Mahto, aged about 39 years, S/o Tekochand Mahto, R/o Vill- Poraiya, P.O, & P.S.- Poraiya, Dist- Giridih, Jharkhand; 2026:JHHC:5659 2 2. Birendra Prasad, aged about 39 years, S/o Chetlal Mahto, R/o Vill- Kalhabad, P.O. & PS. Kalhabad, Dist- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; 3. Kaushal Kishore, S/o Pashupati Jha, R/o Ward No 28, P.O. & P.S Lohaiya Nagar, Dist- Begusarai, Bihar 4. Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 39 years, S/o Rup Narayan Mishra, R/o Vill- kaithahi west, P.O.- Kaithahi, P.S.- Rajnagar, Dist Madhubani, Bihar; 5. Asim Kumar aged about, 39 years S/o Arun Nath Mishra, R/o Mohalla Rajhat, P.O. & P.S.-. Banmankhi, Dist- Purnea, Bihar 6. Sunil Kumar Sah, aged about 44 years, S/o Nagendra Prasad Sah, R/o Near GPO Patna, P.O. & P.S.- Patna, Dist- Patna, Bihar . 7. Chandra Kant Prasad, aged about 42 years, S/o Jagat Pati Prasad, R/o vill- Nohsa, P.O. & P.S.- Fulwari Sharif, Dist- Patna, Bihar; 8. Mukesh Kumar; aged about 44 years, S/o Kapil Deo Prasad, R/o House No. 630KA, Behind Civil Surgeon, P.O. & P.S. - Bihar Sharif, Dist.- Nalanda, Bihar 9. Sharwan Kumar; aged about 44 years, S/o Rambalak Prasad, R/o Naya Bazar, Mahatma Gandhi Road, P.O. & P.S.- Lakhisarai, Dist Lakhisarai, Bihar;. 10. Shamser Alam, aged about 41 years, S/o Md. Mahmood Alam, R/o. Unchri (Ward-01), P.O. & P.S. & Dist- Garhwa, Jharkhand; 11. Ashish Kumar Das, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Nandlal Das, R/o Jamdehi, P.O.- Karaya, P.S.- Bindapathar, Dist- Jamtara, Jharkhand; 12. Rajiv, Ranjan, aged, about 40 years, S/o Nand Kishore Prasad Yadav, R/o. H. No. 599, Ward- 14, Yadu Bans Nagar, P.O. & PS- Chas, Dist- Bokaro, Jharkhand; 13. Vijay Kumar Malviya, aged about. 39 years, S/o Birendra Kumar Malviya, R/o Assam Road, Vill- Simariya, P.O. & P.S.- Jasidih, Dist- Deoghar, Jharkhand; 14. Rahul Kumar, aged about 29 years, S/o Sunil Singh, R/o Vill- Ramchandarpur, P.O. & P.S.- Pipariya, Dist- Lakhisarai, Bihar; 15. Nilesh. Kumar, aged about 37 years, S/o Jai Prakash Prasad Baranwal, R/o Post Office Road, Jainamore, Bandhdih, P.O. & P.S.- Jaina, Dist- Bokaro, Jharkhand. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary at project Building, P.O. + PS- Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand (834004). 2. The Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at 2026:JHHC:5659 3 Ground Floor, Nepal House, P.O & P.S.- Doranda, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand (834002). 3. The Secretary; Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at project Building, P.O. + PS- Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand (834004) 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S- Lalpur, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S Lalpur, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand …Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anup Kumar, Advocate (through V.C.) : Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjoy Piparwall, Advocate : Ms. Pinky Tiwary, Advocate …...... 04/ 25.02.2026: Mr. Anup Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners appears through the virtual mode. He does not complain about the clarity and quality of the audio and video. 2. Petitioners, in this writ petitions, have prayed for setting aside the cut-off date, that is, 01.08.2024 for computation of maximum age provided under clasuse-6 of the Advertisement No.12 of 2025 issued by Jharkhand Public Service Commission for the post of Drug Inspector. They have further prayed for directing the respondents to revise the cut-off date for maximum age to 01.08.2012 and grant age relaxation of 12 years and thereafter extend the time for submission of applications. Beside this, the writ petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 1152 of 2026 have also prayed for modifying the minimum experience eligibility condition given in clause-5(i), (ii), (iii) of Advertisement No. 12 of 2025 to the extent that the said experience eligibility criteria is not mandatory and directing completion of the recruitment process in accordance with the Jharkhand State Drug Control Service Rules, 2023 and the Central Drug Rules, 1945. 2026:JHHC:5659 4 3. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No. 12/2025 to fill-up 30 post of Drug Inspector, fixing 01.08.2024 as the cut-off date for age calculation. Since the last recruitment was held about 15 years ago (in the year 2011), the Petitioners have now crossed the maximum age limit, thus are seeking age relaxation by requesting revision of the cut-off date for age calculation. As per their prayer, the relaxation will be of 12 years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the cut-off date must be modified, as Advertisement No. 12/2025 for 30 post of Drug Inspector follows a 15-years gap since the previous examination held on 2012. He further submitted that the fixation of cut-off date as 01.08.2024 is arbitrary and unreasonable, particularly in view of the 15-year gap since the last recruitment. In fact, as per him cut-off date should have been 01.08.2012. He further submitted that in the instant case, there is an unexplained delay of 15 years since the last examination, inspite of the mandate of the rules to hold examination on each year. He further submits that despite representations given by the petitioners, no action was taken by the respondents. He also submits that the Petitioners cannot be penalized for the inaction and delay caused solely by the respondents. The Respondents have acted without proper application of mind while fixing the cut-off date. 5. The learned counsel for respondents submits that fixing a cut- off date for calculating age is a policy decision taken by the recruiting authority to ensure uniformity and certainty in the recruitment process and it applies uniformly to all candidates. The prescription of a cut-off date and eligibility criteria falls squarely within the exclusive prerogative of the recruiting authority and no individual has a vested right to claim age relaxation. He further submits that there is no provision in the statutory rules, which 2026:JHHC:5659 5 provides for granting any age relaxation. Thus, cut-off date cannot be changed on account of delay in recruitment. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 7. Prayer is two-fold. One is in respect of the essential qualification and second is for the age relaxation. 8. So far as prayer with regard to the minimum experience eligibility as essential condition given in clause-5(i), (ii), (iii) of Advertisement No. 12 of 2025 is concerned, is held not mandatory in W.P.(S) No. 1091 of 2026 (order dated 18.02.2026) titled Pawan Kumar Paswan v. The State of Jharkhand & Others by this Court, wherein the learned Advocate General had appeared and submitted that the same cannot be an essential qualification for appointment in the post of Drug Inspector and the experience is necessary at the time of job assignment only after appointment. 9. 9. The prayer made by the petitioners that the advertisement being Advertisement No. 12/2025 has been issued after a long gap of 15 years and when the advertisement was issued, the writ petitioners had crossed their maximum age, therefore, the cut-off date to fix the maximum age should be revised to 01.08.2012, cannot be accepted. Fixation of cut-off date to calculate the maximum age limit and the other qualifications that were prescribed for the post lies with the appointing authority. Unless a case was made out that such fixation is arbitrary or the same was contrary to a specific provision of law, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot interfere in such matters. It is well settled that age relaxation is a concession, not an enforceable right. It must be specifically provided in the recruitment rules, service rules, or government notifications. It cannot be claimed on the basis of equity or sympathy or on the ground if it is to the disadvantage of a group. 2026:JHHC:5659 6 10. In State of U.P. v. Shanti Devi reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2037, in recruitment process for the post of Mukhya Sevika, a maximum age limit of 50 years was prescribed and an Anganwadi Worker who had crossed the upper age limit, sought relaxation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that age relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and Courts cannot direct grant of age relaxation contrary to statutory service rules or in a manner that results in selective benefit. In paragraph No.15 of judgment held as under: “15. In the present case, the State uniformly applied the prescribed age limit of 50 years to all applicants considered under Rule 5(4)(ii) read with Rule 15B of the UP Service Rules of 1992. On the direction of the Single Judge of the High Court on 11 April 2018, the State applied its mind and considered the representation for the grant of an age relaxation to the respondent twice — on 3 October 2018 and on 13 November 2018. In exercise of its discretionary power, the appellant decided that the respondent was not eligible to be granted the benefit of an age relaxation. No individual candidate can claim a vested right to age relaxation which lies in the discretion of the appointing authority. The respondent cannot claim age relaxation under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules, 1992 as a matter of right. Eligibility criteria should be uniform and there cannot be scope of arbitrary selections. A candidate cannot have a vested right to claim an exemption from a uniformly applicable criterion. A selective grant of an age relaxation will cause serious prejudice in the process of selection and render the process arbitrary.” 11. Further, in Ami Lal Bhat (Dr) v. State of Rajasthan reported in (1997) 6 SCC 614 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that fixing a cut- off 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. The paragraph nos.10 & 11 of the judgment 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 2026:JHHC:5659 7 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 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.” 12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Smt. Anand Kanwar, reported in 1995 Supreme(SC) 1532 has observed that merely because the respondent has got no chance to participate in the selection process being over- aged, there cannot be any direction by the High Court to relax the age. Paragraph No.3 of the Judgments is reads as under: “3. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error bordering on perversity in issuing the mandamus on the reasoning quoted above. It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility of a candidate has to be determined on the basis of the terms and conditions of the advertisement in response to which the candidate applies. There is nothing on the record to show that the State Government was in any manner negligent or at fault in not making the direct recruitment during the period 1983-1989. Be that as it may, the High Court was not justified in taking the clock back to the period when unfilled vacancies were existing and holding that since the respondent was eligible on the date when vacancies fell vacant, she continues to be so till the time the vacancies are filled. Due to inaction on the part of the State Government in not filling the posts year-wise, the respondent 2026:JHHC:5659 8 cannot get a right to participate in the selection despite being over- aged.” 13. 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 analysing judgments of Supreme 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. (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 a ground 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 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. 14. In this case the petitioner is claiming relaxation of 12 years. The claim made by the petitioner is unreasonable. Admittedly when a cut-off date is fixed, some person will definitely fall on wrong side. 2026:JHHC:5659 9 Each and every person cannot be satisfied with the cut-off date nor this Court can look into satisfaction of each and every individual. Further in this case petitioners have failed to bring to the notice of this Court any malafide action of the respondents. In absence of any malice, this Court cannot grant relief to the petitioner. Also it is an admitted fact that there is no provision in the Rules to provide any relaxation. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the cut of date so fixed. 15. In view of the aforesaid reasons and legal aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the delay in the issuance of advertisement by itself will not in any way create a right or even a legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioners so as to seek a direction for relaxation in the cut-off date as prescribed for computation of maximum age provided under clasuse-6 of the Advertisement No.12 of 2025 issued by Jharkhand Public Service Commission for the post of Drug Inspector. Thus, I am not inclined to modify the cut-off date exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, instant writ petitions are dismissed. 16. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 25.02.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 AFR Uploaded on 28.02.2026