The main legal point established is that the fixation of upper age limit and cut-off date for recruitment exercises must be based on rational criteria and not be demonstrably arbitrary.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Out of these three petitioners herein, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 belong to the General category and third petitioner belongs to OBC category, as per submission of the counsel for the petitioners. They are aggrieved by the fixation of cut off date 1.8.2015 for reckoning the upper age limit in appointment on the post of Pharmacist/Technician, the recruitment process of which is being undertaken by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission under Advertisement No. 10/2015, Annexure 1. Petitioners allege that fixation of cut off date 1.8.2015 laying down the upper age limit is wholly arbitrary as for the first time after creation of State the instant recruitment exercise is being held and many eligible persons including the petitioners would be rendered ineligible by fixation of cut off date of upper age limit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have the educational qualification for the post of Pharmacist and no appointment has either been made for last 15 years for the said post. The petitioners also questioned the minimum educational qualification for the post of Pharmacist under the said advertisement, which prescribes passing of matriculation exam prior to 1994. It is submitted that by that stretch of logic, persons who have passed matriculation exam before 1994, would in any case be rendered ineligible as per the cut off date. Therefore, interference is required in the matter. Counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that though statements have not been made relating to the age and date of birth of the petitioners in the petition but on specific instruction, he submits that petitioner 2. No. 1 has born in November, 1974, petitioner No. 2 in January, 1973 and petitioner No. 3 in February, 1979. The third petitioner though belong to OBC category but is out of purview of the reservation as he belongs to the creamy layer.

3. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-Commission submits that fixation of upper age limit and cut off date for carrying out the recruitment exercise is neither arbitrary nor contrary to the Rules. The age limits for different categories i.e. 35 for unreserved, 37 for extremely backward classes, 40 for scheduled caste and scheduled tribes and 38 for female and other backward classes including backward class-II, is in the tune with the circular of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, which applies to such recruitment exercise within the Sate. The fixation of the cut off date is also in line with the Government Circular on the point as per which the vacancies which are notified. It is submitted that upper age limit are reckoned as per the computation of the vacancies up to a particular date i.e. 1st January in most of the cases and in that circumstances the cut off date for reckoning upper age limit is laid down as 1.8.2015. It is submitted that on similar matter relating to fixation of cut off date and upper age limit interference has been declined by this Court vide judgment rendered in the case of Anil Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, WP (S) No. 2505 of 2015 dated 14.9.2015 and in the case of Durga Thakur & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, WP (S) No. 4619 of 2015 dated 28.9.2015. It is submitted that those recruitment have also been undertaken in the current year by the Staff Selection Commission. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners being beyond the upper age as per the cut off date fixed in their respective categories are, therefore, ineligible and this Court should not entertain the writ petition on that count itself.

4. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the relevant facts pleaded, in the first place it is to be observed that necessary material particulars relating to the individual petitioners are lacking in the writ petition specifically in relation to their age, date of birth etc. though counsel for the petitioners has during course of subm