Background Facts

The petitioner was a candidate for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2026. She was aggrieved by the fixation of 1 August as the cut-off date for determining the upper age limit of 32 years. She approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. She did not claim to be aggrieved by the fixation of 32 as the maximum age for participation in the CSE. Her grievance was on fixation of 1 August as the cut-off date.

The contention of the petitioner was that the cut-off date ought to have been 1 January, in which case she would have been eligible to compete. The 1 August was initially fixed as the cut-off date for reckoning the age of the participant for the CSE by Office Memorandum dated 4 December 1979 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. This was repeated in DOPT OM dated 14 July 1988 as well as an Examination Notice 05/2026-CSE dated 4 February 2026 issued by the UPSC, which notified the 2026 CSE.

The petitioner questioned the legality of all these executive instructions to the extent they stipulated 1 August as the cut-off date. However, the Tribunal dismissed the OA.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi.

It was argued by the petitioner that by fixing 1 of August as the date on which the candidate had yet to attain the age of 32, an artificial distinction has been created between persons who were 32 years of age on or before 1 August and those who attained the age of 32 thereafter. This distinction violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It was further contended that once 32 was fixed as the upper age for the candidate to participate in the CSE, all candidates who attained the age of 32 as of 1 January belonged to one homogeneous category. It was impermissible to create an artificial distinction among such candidates by fixing an arbitrary cut-off date of 1 August. It was further argued that the date of 1 August has nothing to do with the eligibility or suitability of the candidate for public service.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the fixation of the upper age of 32 was relatable to the majority of the candidates, and there was no difference between candidates who attained the age of 32 prior to 1 August and those who reached 32 thereafter. 1 August has apparently been fixed as the cutoff date only because the CSE takes place in August.

On the other hand it was argued by the Union of India and UPSC that the fixing of 1 August as the cut-off date on the basis of the date when the CSE is held would appear to be a much more logical, scientific and legitimate decision regarding the cut-off date, rather than fixing 1 January, merely because the calendar year starts on that date. A date which is approximate to the examination itself would be much more appropriate than a date such as 1 January which has no linkage with the holding of the CSE.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the date of 1 January has no sanctity, contrary to the contention of the petitioner. With regard to the judgment in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India relied upon by the petitioner, it was noted by the Court that the decision is distinguishable on facts as well as in law. The distinction between Nakara and the present case is that in Nakara the very fixation of a date was found to be unjustified, whereas in the present case the petitioner does not dispute the decision to fix a cut-off date; he merely wants the date shifted to 1 January. It was further observed that Nakara has been watered down in subsequent decisions, and the Court must maintain judicial restraint in matters relating to the legislative or executive domain.

It was further noted that in several decisions, the choice of a cut-off date cannot be called as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given unless it is shown to be arbitrary or unlawful. The Court also took into consideration the overall impact on public interest, that millions of candidates who would otherwise not have applied would become eligible if the prayer were granted.

It was held by the Division Bench that in academic matters the Court must defer to the discretion of the executive. It was further held that there is no merit in the petitioner's grievance against the fixation of 1 August as the cut-off date for reckoning whether the aspirant is age appropriate.

With the aforesaid observations, the decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the aspirant-petitioner was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Nivedika Ojha v. Union Of India & Anr.

Case No. : W.P.(C) 11524/2026

Counsel for the Petitioner : Nikhil Mehra, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, CGSC and Shikha Yadav, Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar Singh, Vasu Agarwal, Advocates