Age relaxation for multiple categories cannot be claimed cumulatively unless expressly provided by statutory recruitment rules.

The Petitioner, an Other Backward Class (OBC) candidate with a 45% locomotor disability, challenged the age criteria in an advertisement issued on 10/03/2026 for the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer.

The Petitioner’s date of birth is 10/01/1981, making him 45 years, 11 months, and 21 days old as of the cut-off date, 01/01/2027.

The advertisement stipulated a maximum age limit of 45 years after all relaxations.

The Petitioner sought to quash the 01/01/2027 cut-off date, requesting it be shifted to 01/01/2026, and prayed for a cumulative age relaxation (5 years for OBC plus 5 years for disability) and a 3-year "Covid period" extension.

1. Whether the cut-off date for age determination (01/01/2027) was legally valid under the relevant service rules.

2. Whether a candidate can claim age relaxation cumulatively under multiple categories (OBC and Disabled) beyond the maximum prescribed limit of 45 years.

3. Whether the High Court can interfere with the eligibility criteria or cut-off dates prescribed by an employer.

Rule 8 of the M.P. Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1991, which mandates that age eligibility be satisfied on the 1st of January following the commencement of selection.

Union of India v. Pushpa Rani (2008) 9 SCC 242, establishing that prescribing qualifications and recruitment methodology is the exclusive domain of the employer.

Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262, which holds that if a date is appointed by rules or advertisement, it must be upheld.

Principle from the Full Bench decision in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sunil Santosh Pawar 2018 SCC Online Bom. 6881, which prohibits cumulative age relaxation across categories unless explicitly permitted by rules.

The Court observed that the cut-off date of 01/01/2027 was strictly in accordance with Rule 8 of the 1991 Recruitment Rules, leaving no room for judicial interference.

Regarding the claim for 10 years of cumulative relaxation (OBC + Disability), the Court ruled that in the absence of specific statutory provisions or executive instructions, a candidate may opt for the most beneficial single relaxation but cannot claim them cumulatively to exceed the absolute cap of 45 years set by the employer.

The Court emphasized that judicial review is limited to cases of patent arbitrariness or violation of constitutional/statutory provisions; since the Petitioner failed to prove such violations, the employer's prerogative to set eligibility criteria remains intact.

The Court affirmed that (i) the cut-off date was legally fixed per statutory rules; (ii) cumulative age relaxation across two categories is not a right unless expressly provided; and (iii) the judiciary cannot sit in appeal over the employer's policy decisions regarding recruitment criteria.

The Court dismissed the writ petition. All requested reliefs were denied.