### Recruiting Authority Retains Discretion to Fix Recruitment-Specific Age Cut-Off Dates Absent Statutory Uniformity Requirements

The Appellant challenged the notification dated 31.08.2025 issued by the Respondents for recruitment to the "Officer Scale-I" post in Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) for the year 2025 (CRP RRBs XIV).

The Appellant contended that the Respondents shifted the cut-off date for determining the age limit from the traditional 1st of June to 01.09.2025 without prior notice.

This shift allegedly excluded 40,000 to 50,000 candidates, including the Appellant, from participating.

The Appellant initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which declined jurisdiction.

Subsequently, a Writ Petition was filed and dismissed on 06.01.2026, leading to this intra-court appeal.

The court primarily applied the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment of Officers & Employees) Rules, 2017, which empower the recruiting agency to provide a framework for selection but do not specify a mandatory cut-off date.

It relied on the precedent set in Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., which holds that fixing a cut-off date is within the discretion of the recruiting authority and can only be interdicted if it is proved to be unreasonable or capricious.

Additionally, the court referenced Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court and Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala regarding the impermissibility of changing "rules of the game" mid-way, while noting that a cut-off date applied uniformly at the start of a cycle does not constitute such a change.

The Court reasoned that in the absence of a statutory requirement to maintain a constant cut-off date across years, the Respondents acted within their discretion by aligning the cut-off date (01.09.2025) with the actual schedule of the 2025 examination cycle.

The Court found no evidence of mala fides or discrimination, as the date applied universally to all candidates.

Regarding the Appellant’s plea for "legitimate expectation," the Court held that such expectations cannot override the executive’s domain to fix eligibility criteria unless the change is contrary to statutory rules.

Furthermore, since the recruitment process had already advanced to the preliminary testing stage, any judicial interference would cause grave prejudice to other candidates and disrupt the administrative process.

It affirmed that the recruiting authority has the sole discretion to fix eligibility dates as long as they are not capricious.

Consequently, the Court found no justification to interfere with the Single Judge's order and dismissed the Appeal along with all pending applications.