Recruitment age cut-off dates are policy decisions and are not per se arbitrary.

The petitioners sought to participate in the Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/Upper Subordinate Services Examination–2026, for which the upper age limit was 42 years.

They asked the State to change the age-determination cut-off date from 1 July to 1 January of the relevant year and to grant a two-year upper-age relaxation to candidates who had crossed the limit.

The State rejected both requests by order dated 29 July 2026.

The petitioners challenged that order and sought a mandamus to read down Rule 5 of the Uttarakhand Recruitment in Services (Age Limit) Rules, 2014, insofar as it prescribed 1 July as the cut-off date.

Whether prescribing 1 July of the calendar year in which the advertisement is issued as the cut-off date for determining age under Rule 5 is arbitrary and liable to be read down.

Whether the State’s refusal to grant a two-year relaxation in the upper age limit warranted judicial interference.

Rule 5 of the Uttarakhand Recruitment in Services (Age Limit) Rules, 2014 prescribed the relevant age cut-off date.

The Court applied the principle in Dr. Ami Lal Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 614, that fixing a cut-off date for determining age is generally within the discretion of the rule-making authority or employer and is not per se arbitrary.

A cut-off date need not avoid every instance of hardship; it may be invalidated where it is so unreasonable as to be wholly out of line.

The Court treated selection of the age cut-off date as a policy decision within the State’s domain.

It noted that 1 July had been used for recruitment to State services for over five decades and held that the petitioners’ contention—that 1 January would be more appropriate and that the existing date disadvantaged candidates born in the first half of the year—did not establish a recognised ground for judicial intervention.

The Court also found that the Additional Secretary had given valid reasons for refusing the requested age relaxation.

It dismissed the writ petition.