Allowed

Vipul Shankar Mathur v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Personnel New Delhi and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2025WRIA/9753/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the age cut-off of 01.01.2026 prescribed for SSC Junior Engineer Examination 2025. The Court held illustration 'B' to paragraph 2 of the OM dated 14.07.1988 was contrary to its substantive provisions, quashed it, and directed that age be reckoned as on 01.08.2025, permitting the petitioner to appear.

What did the court decide?

Illustration 'B' to paragraph 2 of OM dated 14.07.1988 quashed by certiorari; petitioner permitted to sit in Junior Engineer (Electrical) Examination 2025 with age reckoned as on 01.08.2025.

Vipul Shankar Mathur vs Union of India Thru… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 9753 of 2025

Vipul Shankar Mathur

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Personnel New Delhi And Another .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajiv Srivastava, Amita Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I.

¶7

Court No. - 7

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard Mr. Rajiv Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. S. B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties.

¶10

Petition has been filed with the following main relief:-

¶11

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari whereby the illustration B, given in paragraph 2 of the OM dated 14.07.1988, contained in Annexure A-2 to this writ petition is quashed.

¶12

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari whereby the impugned clause 7.1 prescribing "For the posts for which the age limit is 32 years, candidates must have been born not earlier than 02.08.1994" contained in the 'Notice' dated 30.06.2025, Junior Engineer, (Civil, Mechanical & Electrical) Examination, 2025, (Annexure A-3) is quashed.

¶13

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties 1 and 2, to issue a corrigendum by providing the age limit to be reckoned as on 01.08.2025, in Clause 7.1 in the Notice dated 30.06.2025, for conducting Junior Engineer, (Civil, Mechanical & Electrical) Examination, 2025, consequent to which petitioner is allowed to submit his application as a candidate for the aforesaid examination."

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that impugned advertisement dated 30.06.2025 was issued for purposes of

¶15

WRIA No. 9753 of 2025

¶16

¶17

recruitment on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil, Mechanical & Electrical) Examination 2025 in which clause 7.1 prescribed that for the said post, the age limit is 32 years with candidates who must not have been born earlier than 02.08.1994.

¶18

It is submitted that the aforesaid condition has been taken on the ground that the cut off date for purposes of date of birth has been taken as 1^st January, 2026.

¶19

It is submitted that although notice/advertisement dated 30.06.2025 has been issued in terms of Office Memorandum dated 14.07.1988 but the conditions indicated in paragraph - 7.1 of the impugned advertisement are contrary to the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 14.07.1988. It is submitted that opposite parties have ignored the substantive portion of Office Memorandum and have placed reliance only on illustration 'B' indicated in Office Memorandum but it is quite evident that the aforesaid illustration is not in conformity with the substantive portion of Office Memorandum.

¶20

It is submitted that cause of action arose to petitioner in view of fact that in case 1^st January, 2026 is taken to be the cut off date for purposes of date of birth, petitioner would be overage and would come within the cut off date in case same is taken as 1^st August, 2025 in conformity with the Office Memorandum.

¶21

Learned counsel for opposite parties has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of counter affidavit dated 02.12.2025 and has raised a preliminary objection regarding entertainability of this petition in view of the fact that petition would be maintainable before the Central Administrative Tribunal since the department concerned is notified before the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the aspect of fixation of cut off dates is a matter of executive policy and does not require judicial interference unless shown to be manifestly arbitrary. It is therefore submitted that the aspect of determination of cut off dates lies exclusively within realm of policy.

¶22

On merits, it has been submitted that the cut off dates indicated in the advertisement is in consonance with the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.1988, particularly illustration 'B' to paragraph - 2 of the

¶23

WRIA No. 9753 of 2025

¶24

¶25

Office Memorandum. It is therefore submitted that since the examination is being conducted in the second part of year 2025, the cut off date for age determination is required to be taken as 1^st January, 2026 as indicated in the illustration. It is also submitted that there is no distinction indicated in the Office Memorandum with regard to 'calendar year' and 'year of recruitment'. It is submitted that in case 'year of recruitment' commences from 1^st July of a year, it would continue for the next twelve months and therefore the aspect of a calendar year commencing from 1^st January of any year would be irrelevant.

¶26

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the interpretation of Office Memorandum dated 14.07.1988 is required.

¶27

The aforesaid Office Memorandum reads as follows:-

¶28

"No.AB.14017/70/87-Estt. (RR)

¶29

Government of India Ministry of of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training

¶30

¶31

New Delhi, the 14 July, 88

¶32

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

¶33

Subject:- Crucial date for determining age limits for competitive examinations conducted in parts by the UPSC/SSC.

¶34

As the Ministry of Defence etc., are aware, according to the instructions contained in para 2 of this Department's O.M. No. 42013/1/79-Estt(D) dated 4 th December, 1979, the crucial date for determining the age limits for competitive examinations held for recruitment by UPSC/SSC etc. in the first half of the year is the first day of January of the year in which the examination is held; and if the examination is held in the second half of the year, the crucial date will be the first day of August of the year in which the examination is held.

¶35

Some doubts have been expressed as to what should be the crucial date for determining the age limits in respect of examinations which are held in two parts on two different dates of the year. For instance, the Preliminary examination of the Civil Services Examination is normally held in the first half of the year and the Main examination is held in the second half of the year. In this case the position has been clearly indicated in the rules for this examination that the later of the two dates would be the crucial date. If,

¶36

WRIA No. 9753 of 2025

¶37

¶38

however, both parts of an examination fall in the first half of the year, the crucial date for determining the age limits will normally be the I^st of January. Similarly, if both parts of an examination fall in the second half of the year, the crucial date for determining the age limits would be the I^st of August. The position in this regard is clarified in the following illustrations:-

¶39

ILLUSTRATIONS

¶40

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of Date on which Date on which Date for determining Examination first part of second part the age limits Exam. held of Exam. held (Minimum and Maximum) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exam.A 1-3-88 5-8-88 As on 1-8-88
Exam.B 1-9-88 1-3-89 As on 1-1-89
Exam.C 1-3-88 1-5-88 As on 1-1-88 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶41

It may sometimes so happen that due to exigencies of circumstances an examination, which is normally held during the first half of the year, is shifted to the second half. In such a case the date for determining the age limits would still be the 1^st of January. The exact position should be clearly indicated in the rules for the respective examinations, which are notified for the purpose.

¶42

Sd/- x x x

¶43

(M.V. KESAVAN) DIRECTOR (E)

¶44

¶45

All the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.

¶46

All attached offices of Department of Personnel and Training.

¶47

Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi.

¶48

Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi.

¶49

Rajya Sabha Secretariat (Admn. Branch), New Delhi.

¶50

Lok Sabha Secretariat (Admn. Branch), New Delhi.

¶51

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.

¶52

Commission for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, New Delhi.

¶53

Central Vigilance Commission/Election Commission.

¶54

Secretary, Staff Side, National Council, 9, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.

¶55

All Members of the Staff Side of the National Council.

¶56

All Sections of the Department of Personnel & Training.

¶57

Copy forwarded for information and similar action to:-

¶58

Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi.

¶59

President's Secretariat/Vice-President's Secretariat.

¶60

Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport (Department of Railways, (Railway

¶61

WRIA No. 9753 of 2025

¶62

¶63

Board), New Delhi.

¶64

Copy forwarded to Chief Secretaries of all States Govts/Union Territories for information.

¶65

Sd/- x x x (M.V. KESAVAN) DIRECTOR (E)"

¶66

Upon consideration of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, it is evident that in paragraph - 1 thereof, it has been specified that crucial date for determining the age limit for competitive examinations in case the same are held in the first half of the year, would be first day of January of the year in which the examination is held. As a corollary, if the examination is held in the second half of the year crucial date would be the first day of August of the year in which the examination is held.

¶67

The aforesaid paragraph therefore clearly indicates that the first half and second half of the year are relatable to the calendar year and not the year of recruitment since the cut off dates are required to be taken as first January and first August of the year in which the examination is held.

¶68

In case the cut off date was required to be taken as per the year of recruitment, the cut off dates would have been indicated as first July of the year in which examination is being held and first of January of the succeeding year. This however is not the case since it is the first of January and first of August which have been taken as cut off dates clearly signifying that the cut off dates are required to be taken as per 'calendar year' and not as per the 'year of recruitment'.

¶69

The Office Memorandum also specifies that in case the first part of examination is being held in the first half of the year, the cut off date would be first day of January of the year in which examination is held . If the examination is held in second half of the year, the crucial date would be first day of August of the year in which examination is held .

¶70

In the present case, it is admitted that no examination was held in the first half of the year and is being held in the second half of the year 2025. Applying the condition indicated in the Office

¶71

WRIA No. 9753 of 2025

¶72

¶73

Memorandum dated 14.07.1988, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is the first day of August, 2025 which only can be taken as the cut off date for purposes of determining age limit.

¶74

So far as illustration 'B' to paragraph - 2 is concerned, it is quite evident that the said illustration is not in conformity with the substantive portion of the Office Memorandum and is in fact quite contrary to what has been clearly indicated in paragraphs 1 & 2 of the Office Memorandum.

¶75

Even upon examination of paragraph - 3 of the Office Memorandum, it is evident that in case the examination which is normally held during the first half of the year is shifted to the second half, the date for determining age limit would still be first of January.

¶76

Here, it is relevant that there is no indication in the said paragraph as to whether the first of January is to be taken as the year in which examination is being held or the succeeding year. For purposes of such determination, this Court has to revert to paragraphs 1 & 2 of the Office Memorandum which clearly stipulates that the cut off date is to be of the year in which the examination is being held.

¶77

The said Office Memorandum nowhere in its substantive portion indicates that it is the first January of the succeeding year which can be taken as the cut off date for purposes of age determination.

¶78

In view of discussion made here-in-above, it is evident that illustration 'B' to paragraph - 2 of the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.1988 is clearly contrary to the substantive portion of the Office Memorandum. This Court is also of the considered opinion that an illustration can never supersede the substantive portion of an order since the illustration is merely in the nature of a clarification of the determination already made in the order. In such circumstances as well, in this case, as the illustration is clearly not in consonance with the substantive portion of the Office Memorandum, it is liable to be struck down.

¶79

So far as the aspect of preliminary objection is concerned, it is settled law that availability of alternative remedy can never be a bar to entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶80

WRIA No. 9753 of 2025

¶81

¶82

India and is at the discretion of the High Court concerned.

¶83

In the present facts and circumstances, since there was no disputed question of fact to be adjudicated upon, this Court has exercised its extraordinary power available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶84

The opposite parties in their counter affidavit have also admitted that although the aspect of determination on cut off dates lies exclusively in the realm of policy, the same can be examined in case it is demonstrated to be arbitrary or discriminatory or lacks a rationale basis.

¶85

In view of discussions made here-in-above, the illustration 'B' to paragraph - 2 of Office Memorandum dated 14.07.1988 is clearly arbitrary and lacks a rationale nexus with the object sought to be achieved with the substantive portion of the Office Memorandum.

¶86

In view thereof, the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for opposite parties is hereby rejected.

¶87

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that said examination is already underway today itself.

¶88

For purposes of grant of relief, it is noticed that the opposite parties had been granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit on 03.09.2025 and since it was not filed within the time-frame, directions were issued on 27.11.2025 that in case counter affidavit is not filed by the next date of listing, petition would be heard on merits even in its absence since examination is to be conducted on 03.12.2025. It is in pursuance thereof that counter affidavit was filed yesterday on 02.12.2025. It is thus evident that the opposite parties themselves have delayed adjudication of this writ petition.

¶89

Learned counsel for opposite parties has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in Ritu Garg and Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 1178/2021 . However, a perusal of the same indicates that it is inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case since in the said petition, the issue was with regard to determination of age limit as on the date of occurring of vacancy and not as in the year in which the examinations were to be

¶90

WRIA No. 9753 of 2025

¶91

¶92

held. The issue directly in question was that due to non-conduct of examinations in the year 2020, which were held subsequently in 2021, the age reckoning was taken as 01.01.2021. The judgment has in paragraph - 13 clearly indicated that the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.1988 does not prescribe age reckoning to be with reference to the year in which the vacancies are notified for recruitment.

¶93

In the present case, it is not the age determination with regard to the year of occurring of vacancy but the year in which the examinations are held, which is in question. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the said judgment would be inapplicable in the present case.

¶94

In view of the discussions made here-in-above, illustration 'B' to paragraph - 2 in the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.1988 is hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari.

¶95

Since the examinations have started today itself and will conclude on 06.12.2025, opposite parties are directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the aforesaid examination for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30.06.2025. The aspect of cut off date for determination of age of petitioner shall be taken as '01.08.2025'.

¶96

Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶97

Office is directed to issue a copy of the judgment expeditiously to learned counsel for parties in order to ensure immediate compliance.

¶98

December 3, 2025 lakshman/kvg

¶99

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶100

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vipul Shankar Mathur v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Personnel New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipul Shankar Mathur v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Personnel New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhanu Prakash Shukla and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Satendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Appointment Lko. and 4 Others

Anand Kumar Divedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Vs Stat of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Gaurav Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Tech. Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dharmraj Yadav (Constable Driver , Pno - 040600390) and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. It Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 10 Others