Jyotin Prakash Kushwaha Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:19180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 3380 of 2026

Jyotin Prakash Kushwaha, Age- 51 years, S/o- Ganesh Ram Kushwaha, Jhumra Chowk, NH-100, P.O & P.STilaiya, Maheshra, Distt- Hazaribag …… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

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, DistrictRanchi

¶9

The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), Ranchi P.O. & P.S.-Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶10

Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), Ranchi P.O. & P.S.-Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand..

¶11

Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), Ranchi P.O. & P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.. … Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate For the Res.-State : AC to A.G For the Res. JPSC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Adv.

¶16

¶17

CAV on 06/05/2026 Pronounced on.01/07/2026

¶18

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for shifting the cut-off date for the maximum age limit from 01.08.2017 to 01.08.2014 in Advertisement No. 06/2026. The petitioner further seeks the extension of the time of submission of the application of the petitioner under the concerned category by relaxation of 3 years in the maximum age limit, and for quashing clauses 4 and 5 of the said advertisement, along with clause 6 of the resolution no. 506 dated 25.01.2024, whereby the cut-off date for calculation of maximum age limit has been fixed as 01.08.2017.

¶19

1

¶20

2026:JHHC:19180

¶21

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Sahayak Teacher T.G.T. and has been teaching at KBSS High School, Chauparan, Hazaribagh since 25.08.2010. On 18.03.2026, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) issued a notice to fill up the backlog vacancy in the Jharkhand Financial Service Cadre by publishing the Advertisement No. 06/2026 for Jharkhand Combined Civil Services (Backlog) Competitive Examination – 2023, thereby inviting applications for appointment to the post of State Tax Officer.

¶22

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the said advertisement, it has been provided under clause 4 that the upper age limit will be calculated in terms of the resolution no. 506 dated 25.01.2024, whereby the cut-off date for the calculation of the maximum age limit is 01.08.2017. Since clause 5 of the said advertisement provides that the upper age limit in the Backward Classes Category shall be 37 years, the petitioner having completed 42 years as of 01.08.2017 and being BC-II candidate, has crossed the cut-off age according to the advertisement; therefore, he is not eligible to fill out the said examination form. Thus, due to the delay in conducting of examinations by the Commission, he has filed this writ application to get relaxation by shifting the cut-off date for age limit.

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the examinations are not conducted regularly by the Commission, such backlog advertisements are notified to fill in the vacant posts, but the fixation of the cut-off date as 01.08.2017 is unjust and arbitrary because if the examinations were conducted regularly as

¶24

2

¶25

2026:JHHC:19180

¶26

per the statutory rules, and if the cut-off date were fixed as 01.08.2014, the petitioner, along with several similarly situated candidates, who are presently unfairly excluded from the application process due to the delay attributable to the respondents, would have been eligible for the same.

¶27

5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and cited the judgment delivered by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2211 of 2026 and analogous cases, wherein identical questions of law were raised for fixing the cut-off date for calculation of the upper age limit for the General Category as 01.08.2017/01.08.2018 in place of 01.08.2022 in the Advertisement No. 05 of 2026.

¶28

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 01.08.2014 merely because some relaxations were granted in earlier examinations under different circumstances and the same cannot be on mere asking of some candidate.

¶29

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that a notice dated 18.03.2026 was issued by the respondents for filling the backlog vacancy in the Jharkhand Financial Service Cadre. In the said advertisement, the cut-off date for the calculation of the upper age limit in the Backward Classes Category was fixed as 37 years on 01.08.2017.

¶30

7. The grievance of the petitioner arises out of the fact that he is unable to fill the concerned examination form, as he has crossed the cut-off age for application to

¶31

3

¶32

2026:JHHC:19180

¶33

the said post of State Tax Officer as per the advertisement.

¶34

8. It further appears that a similar matter has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2211 of 2026 and analogous cases , wherein similar reliefs were claimed by the petitioners; however, the said writ applications were dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2026. Since the facts and issues of this case are identical to those of the earlier decided writ applications and the reliefs claimed are also similar, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the previous judicial decisions.

¶35

9. For brevity, the relevant paragraphs of the abovesaid judgment are quoted herein-below:

¶36

“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.

¶37

17. In Dr. Ami Lal Bhat (Dr) v. State of Rajasthan 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:

¶38

“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

¶39

4

¶40

2026:JHHC:19180

¶41

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. ”

¶42

10. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to show that the fixation of the cut-off is contrary to law or is manifestly arbitrary. In the absence of any such pleadings or proof of malice, no interference can be made with a policy decision taken by the competent authority.

¶43

11. Having regard to the above discussions, the instant writ application, is hereby, dismissed. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stand closed.

¶44

( Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶45

01.07. 2026 AFR Uploaded on 06.07.2026 Fahim/-

¶46

5

Jyotin Prakash Kushwaha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyotin Prakash Kushwaha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Randhir Kapoor Vs State of Jharkhand

Krishna Deo Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sushil Kumar Chaudhary Vs Ranchi University, Ranchi,through Its Vice Chancellor

Binay Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jai Prakash Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabha Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand