Krishnaraj Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

:Shri Kunal Das, Advocate :Shri K.G. Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 21.07.2026

1. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly please to direct the Respondents to grant an age relaxation to the Petitioner from 41 years to 40 years for the selection process under Advertisement No. 03/2026/Examination dated 17.06.2026.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly please to direct the Respondent No. 2 to provisionally or permanently accept the online/physical application form of the Petitioner for the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (ADPPO) and permit him to sit for the upcoming examination scheduled for 20/09/2026.

10.3 Kindly Pass any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice, in favour of petitioner”

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging Advertisement No.03/2026/Examination dated 17.06.2026 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution 3 Officer. According to the petitioner, he was born on 16.07.1985 and completed his LL.B. degree in the year 2017. He is presently practicing as an Advocate and is a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh. It is pleaded that as per Clause 4 of the advertisement, the upper age limit for general category local residents of Chhattisgarh is 40 years as on

01.01.2026. On the said cut off date, the petitioner was aged 40 years, 5 months and 16 days and, therefore, became ineligible by a margin of a few months. The petitioner contends that the previous recruitment to the said post was conducted in the year 2021 and no recruitment was held thereafter for nearly five years. Owing to such delay on the part of the respondents, he crossed the prescribed upper age limit and lost his opportunity to compete for public employment. The petitioner submitted a representation requesting grant of age relaxation; however, no favourable decision was taken. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred seeking age relaxation and permission to participate in the selection process.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has become ineligible solely due to the respondents’ failure to 4 conduct recruitment for nearly five years after the 2021 selection. It is contended that, had the recruitment been held within a reasonable time, the petitioner would have been within the prescribed age limit. It is further argued that denial of age relaxation violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the petitioner has been deprived of an equal opportunity in public employment without any fault on his part. It is also submitted that the petitioner is over-aged only by a few months, possesses the requisite qualifications and experience, and therefore deserves age relaxation and permission to participate in the recruitment process.

4. Learned counsel appearing for State as well as for Respondent No.2/CGPSC submit that the recruitment process has been conducted strictly in accordance with Advertisement No.03/2026/Examination and the applicable recruitment rules. It is contended that the petitioner admittedly does not satisfy the prescribed upper age limit as on the cut off date, i.e.,

01.01.2026, and is, therefore, ineligible to participate in the selection process.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the prescription of a cut- 5 off date and the fixation of the upper age limit fall exclusively within the domain of the rule-making authority. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan & Others, (1997) 6 SCC 614, it is contended that fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post is in the discretion of the rule-making authority or the employer.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot claim age relaxation as a matter of right merely because recruitment was not conducted in previous years. Grant of age relaxation is a policy decision to be taken by the State Government under the applicable statutory rules. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition, deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the only issue requiring consideration is whether the petitioner, who admittedly does not satisfy the prescribed upper age limit as on the cut-off date fixed under the 6 advertisement, can seek a direction from this Court for grant of age relaxation and permission to participate in the recruitment process.

9. It is not in dispute that Advertisement No.03/2026/ Examination dated 17.06.2026 prescribes the upper age limit of 40 years for local residents of the State of Chhattisgarh as on 01.01.2026. It is also not disputed that on the said cut-off date, the petitioner was aged 40 years, 5 months and 16 days and was, therefore, ineligible under the terms of the advertisement.

10. The principal contention of the petitioner is that since no recruitment was conducted after the year 2021, he lost the opportunity to participate in the selection process and, therefore, deserves age relaxation. This submission, though appealing on equitable considerations, cannot be accepted in law.

11. It is the trite law that fixation of the cut-off date for determining eligibility, including the maximum age, lies within the exclusive domain of the rule-making authority or the employer. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot direct the respondents 7 to relax the eligibility conditions or rewrite the terms of the recruitment advertisement. It is also well settled that every cut-off date is bound to cause hardship to some candidates who fall on the wrong side of the line; however, such hardship by itself does not render the cut-off date arbitrary or unconstitutional. Unless the cut-off date is shown to be wholly unreasonable or arbitrary, the Court ought not to interfere.

12. It is noteworthy to mention here that 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 fide 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 candidate. It must be unfair to a large number of candidates who might be similarly situated but, who may not apply, thinking that they are age barred.

13. In the present case, the petitioner has neither challenged the constitutional validity of the relevant recruitment rules nor demonstrated that the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable. Merely because the petitioner has crossed the prescribed upper age 8 limit by a few months or because recruitment was not conducted in earlier years does not confer upon him an enforceable legal right to claim age relaxation.

14. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or arbitrariness in the prescription of the cut-off date or the upper age limit contained in Advertisement No.03/2026/ Examination dated

17.06.2026. The petitioner, being admittedly over-aged on the relevant date, is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

15. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at the motion stage itself. sd/- Shoaib (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge