2026:JHHC:5891 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1514 of 2026 ----- Neelam Kumari, daughter of Chandrika Prasad, resident of Buchaa Mahadev, near Sunday Market, PO Hatia, PS Jagannathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O.-Dhurwa, PS Jagannathpur, Dist-Ranchi 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O.-Dhurwa, PS Jagannathpur, Dist-Ranchi 3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Circular Road, P.O. & P.S- Lalpur, Dist-Ranchi. 4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, P.O. & P.S Lalpur, Dist- Ranchi …Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II For the JPSC : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate …...... 02/ 27.02.2026: This petition has been presented today on mentioning before this Court as the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this case is very urgent. Considering the submission of the petitioner, this Court directed the office to register this case and list this case immediately by notifying. Thus, this case has been notified without stamp reporting. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for fixing the cut-off date for calculation of upper age limit (General Category) to be 01.08.2018 by substituting the same in the Advertisement No. 01 of 2026 dated 29.01.2026. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that Advertisement No. 01 of 2026 dated 29.01.2026 was issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) for appointment to various Group-A posts. As per the advertisement, the cut-off for calculating age limit has been 2026:JHHC:5891 2 fixed as 01.08.2026. As the examination was not conducted every year between 2021 and 2025, the petitioner wants cut-off date to be set as 01.08.2018 for calculation of age. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Examination Rules, the Commission is required to conduct the examination every year, but it failed to do so, causing loss of opportunity to eligible candidates. He further submits that it is reasonable and just that the cut-off date for the present advertisement should be extended in line with the previous relaxation granted. He further submitted that earlier, similarly situated candidates have already been granted interim relief by the Court, thus, the petitioner is entitled to the same protection. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Advertisement has been issued strictly in accordance with the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021. He further submits that the petitioner cannot claim age relaxation, as a matter of right. He further submitted that the cut-off date cannot be extended to 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. The respondents have acted uniformly and applied the same cut-off date to all candidates under the Advertisement No.01 of 2026 dated 29.01.2026. The petitioner, having crossed the prescribed age limit as per the applicable rules, cannot seek judicial intervention. He lastly submits 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. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. I find that between 2021 and 2025, the JPSC has conducted two examinations in 2026:JHHC:5891 3 the year 2022 and 2024 vide Advertisement No.01 of 2021 and Advertisement No.01 of 2024. Further, in Advertisement No.01 of 2021 the cut-off date was 01.08.2016 and in Advertisement No.01 of 2024 the cut-off date was 01.08.2017. Thus, I find that the JPSC on account of delay in conducting examination has already extended the relief to the candidates by relaxing the cut-off date in the earlier examinations. Now, the petitioner whose date of birth is 01.07.1982, prays to fix the cut-off date for calculation of upper age limit (General Category) to be 01.08.2018 in the Advertisement No. 01/2026 dated 29.01.2026. 7. 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. 8. 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 2026:JHHC:5891 4 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.” 9. 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 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 2026:JHHC:5891 5 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.” 10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Smt. Anand Kanwar, reported in 1995 Supreme(SC) 1532has 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 cannot get a right to participate in the selection despite being over-aged.” 11. 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. 2026:JHHC:5891 6 (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 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. 12. The claim made by the petitioner is unreasonable. Admittedly when a cut-off date is fixed, some person will definitely fall on wrong side. 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 petitioner has 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. Fixing the cut-off date is within the domain of the employer i.e. the State herein. In this case the cut-off date is 01.08.2026 as per the advertisement. Now it is admitted that the Government has given relaxation of four (4) years, as the cut-off has been revised to 2022. The petitioner wants more relaxation. This claim is unreasonable. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the cut of date so fixed. 13. 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 petitioner so as to seek a direction for relaxation in the cut-off date fixed in the Advertisement No.01 of 2026:JHHC:5891 7 2026 issued by Jharkhand Public Service Commission and later on reviewed/revised. 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. 14. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 27.02.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 28.02.2026