Fixation of cut-off date for age eligibility is the employer's prerogative and not subject to judicial interference.

The petitioners, aspiring candidates for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer, challenged Advertisement No. 13/2026 issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC).

The advertisement fixed the cut-off date for calculating the maximum age limit as 01.08.2020.

The petitioners contended that since the last recruitment occurred in 2020 and there was a six-year delay in the current process, the cut-off date should be relaxed to 01.08.2019 to accommodate candidates who became over-aged during the intervening period, particularly citing the COVID-19 pandemic and precedents in the Bihar Judicial Service examinations.

1. Whether the Court can direct the respondent-Commission to shift the cut-off date for the maximum age limit from 01.08.2020 to 01.08.2019 based on recruitment delays and hardship?

The Court applied the principle of administrative discretion in fixing eligibility criteria, relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 614, which establishes that fixing a cut-off date is the prerogative of the rule-making authority or employer and is not arbitrary simply because it causes hardship to some.

The Court followed the Division Bench ruling of the Patna High Court in Kiran Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 6500 of 2026), which held that cut-off dates fixed in conformity with statutory rules (such as Rule 6(a) of the relevant 1955 Rules) are legally valid and cannot be overridden by administrative letters or claims of hardship.

The Court rejected the petitioners' arguments regarding "legitimate expectation" and the six-year delay in recruitment.

The power to determine age criteria lies within the exclusive domain of the employer/Commission.

Citing Dr. Ami Lal Bhat, the Court observed that any cut-off date will inevitably place some candidates on the "wrong side" of eligibility, but this does not render the date capricious or arbitrary.

The Court found that the BPSC had exercised its discretion within legal bounds and that "hardship of candidates" is not a valid ground to declare statutory provisions or advertisement criteria as illegal or unreasonable.

The Court declined to interfere with the BPSC’s decision to fix the date at 01.08.2020. The writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.