Eligibility criteria including age limits cannot be prescribed after the commencement of the selection process.

The Petitioner, a retired Group-A Gazetted Officer and former empanelled arbitrator, applied for empanelment as an arbitrator with the Registrar Co-operative Societies (RCS), GNCTD, for the 2022-2025 term following an advertisement dated March 11, 2022.

Neither the Delhi Cooperative Societies (DCS) Act/Rules nor the advertisement prescribed a maximum age limit.

However, after applications were received, the Selection Committee unanimously resolved on July 6, 2022, to fix a cut-off age of 70 years, resulting in the Petitioner’s disqualification.

During the pendency of the writ, the 2022-2025 term expired, and a fresh advertisement dated June 30, 2025 (for the 2025-2028 term) was issued, which again omitted any age criteria.

The Petitioner sought amended relief to be considered for the 2025-2028 panel.

1. Whether the Selection Committee can legally prescribe a maximum age limit as eligibility criteria after the application process has commenced and without it being mentioned in the advertisement.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s candidature for the 2025-2028 empanelment term should be considered regardless of the previously imposed 70-year age cut-off.

Section 71 and Section 137(zl) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, which delegate the manner and procedure of arbitrator selection to the rules.

Rule 87 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007, which lists eligible categories of persons—including retired Gazetted officers—but provides no outer age limit.

The doctrine of "rules of the game" as affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Others (2025), which establishes that under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the state cannot change eligibility criteria midway through a recruitment process in an arbitrary or non-transparent manner.

The court reasoned that while the Selection Committee possesses "considerable leeway" and discretion under Rule 87 to shortlist candidates based on fair criteria (such as criminal records or past performance), prescribing a cut-off age after the receipt of applications is untenable.

Such "post-application criteria" formulated in "closed doors" violates the principle of fairness and transparency, as it excludes a pool of applicants who relied on the initial advertisement's eligibility requirements.

The court held that if the state intends to disqualify candidates based on age, such conditions must be explicitly stated in the initial advertisement to avoid allegations of bias or favoritism.

Since the 2025 advertisement also remained silent on age, the court found no legal basis to apply the Selection Committee's previous restrictive resolution to the current term.

The court directed the Respondent to consider the Petitioner’s name for the current panel based on the criteria in the advertisement and Rule 87; further ordered the RCS to ensure that any future eligibility criteria must be clearly stipulated in the advertisement itself.