Over-Age Candidate Can't Claim Relaxation Due To Delay In Earlier Recruitment: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday (January 14) held that a candidate who had participated in a recruitment process of 2022 cannot seek age relaxation on the grounds that the earlier recruitment process had extended the age limit prescribed under the Rules.

The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed;

"This Court is of further opinion that even if some delay occurred in concluding the 2022 recruitment process, such delay by itself does not create a vested right in favour of the petitioner to claim eligibility under a subsequent advertisement governed by different conditions".

A writ petition was filed seeking interference with the age eligibility criteria prescribed under an advertisement issued by the MP Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Professor of Sociology. The petitioner prayed for the grant of age relaxation up to 50 years on the ground that the earlier recruitment process initiated in 2022 was not concluded within a reasonable time.

The petitioner contended that he was aged 46 years and was serving in the Forest Department. He belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category and possessed the required educational qualifications needed for the stated post. The petitioner argued that in 2017, the maximum age limit prescribed for the ST Category was 50 years, which created a legitimate expectation of similar treatment in future recruitments.

The petitioner contended that the Advertisement issued in 2022 did not conclude expeditiously, and his interview was scheduled for September 2025. During this interval, another advertisement was issued on December 20, 2024, revising the eligibility conditions, including a reduced maximum age limit of 45 years as on the cut-off date of January 1, 2025.

The petitioner argued that he had already crossed the age of 45 years and became ineligible to apply in the 2024 advertisement. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court seeking the application of the earlier age limit prescribed in the 2022 advertisement as a compensatory measure.

The petitioner argued that the Commission's actions violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by depriving the petitioner of equal opportunity in public employment through the rigid application of the revised age limit.

The State argued that the criteria prescribed in the Advertisements of 2022 and 2024 were entirely distinct as separate sets of terms and conditions governed them.

The bench first noted that the 2024 Advertisement was governed by an independent recruitment process with its own eligibility criteria, which were binding on all candidates.

The bench further emphasized, "It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that eligibility conditions prescribed in an advertisement must be strictly complied with. Courts cannot permit participation of candidates who do not satisfy the prescribed criteria on the relevant cut-off date".

Additionally, the court observed that even delays in concluding the recruitment process of 2022 in itself would not create vested rights in favour of the petitioner to claim eligibility under a subsequent advertisement governed by different criteria.

The bench, referring to the Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit doctrine, which prescribes that the act of the court shall prejudice no man, clarified that the same could not be used to override express eligibility conditions prescribed by a competent authority.

The bench also rejected the petitioner's contention regarding the creation of legitimate expectations, noting that it could not be used against a "clear nad unambigious policy decision".

Additionally, the court noted that in the lack of any challenge to the validity of the revised age limit, the court cannot examine the viability of the policy decision.

Further, the bench empahsized that granting the age relaxation to the petitioner would result in the creation of a special category through judicial intervention, which was impermissible.

The bench held that since the petitioner fails to fulfil the age eligibility required in the 2024 Advertisement, he could not claim the right to be considered under the same. The case was thus dismissed.

Case Title: Vijayendra Pal Singh Ajnariya v State of Madhya Pradesh [W.P. No.46233/2025]

For Petitioner: Advocate Kamlesh Manwani

For State: Advocate Raghav Shrivastava

For MPPSC: Advocate VP Khare

Click here to read/download the Order