The recruiting authority has the discretion to set an age cut-off date for recruitment; judicial intervention to alter such dates mid-process is impermissible unless established as arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of statutory rules.

1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assail the recruitment process initiated by the Respondents for recruitment to the posts of Officer Scale-I and Office Assistant (Multipurpose) in Regional Rural Banks under notification dated 31st August, 2025.

2. The Petitioners contend that the Common Recruitment Process for RRBs is conducted annually and in prior cycles, the cut-off date for the purpose of age eligibility was fixed as 1st June of the relevant year.

Reference is made to ‘CRP RRBs XIII’, where the cut-off date for age was fixed as 1st June, 2024. The grievance in the present batch is that for ‘CRP RRBs XIV’ the Respondents altered the cut-off framework and fixed a different date, allegedly because the recruitment calendar was revised and the examinations were scheduled later than in earlier cycles. The Petitioners submit that this alteration has rendered them age-ineligible.

3. On that footing, the Petitioner in W.P. 94/2026 seeks reliefs in relation to the post of Officer Scale-I, whereas W.P. 93/2026 has been instituted by two Petitioners, of whom Petitioner No. 1 intended to apply for both the posts of Officer Scale-I and Office Assistant (Multipurpose) and Petitioner No. 2 intended to apply for the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose). They contend that owing to the revised cut-off date notified under ‘CRP RRBs XIV’, they were rendered age-ineligible for the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose).

4. In substance, the Petitioners pray for (i) quashing of the notification dated 31st August, 2025 issued under ‘CRP RRBs XIV’; (ii) a direction to revise the cut-off date for age eligibility to 1st June, 2025 or 1st April, 2025; (iii) a direction to revise the prescribed lower age limit for the posts in question on the ground that the minimum age of 18 years is incompatible with the requirement of a Bachelor’s degree; (iv) permission to participate in the current recruitment notwithstanding age ineligibility; and (v) in the alternative, a one-time relaxation enabling participation in the next recruitment cycle despite the age bar.

5. The Respondents oppose the petitions on maintainability as well as on merits. It is stated that online registration has long since closed, the preliminary examination has already been held, and the process has reached an advanced stage.

It is further submitted that the results are scheduled to be declared in January, 2026. Any interference now, it is urged, would unravel the entire recruitment exercise and prejudice a large body of candidates who are not before the Court.

6. Two features of the present litigation stand out. First, the reliefs sought are not incremental. The Petitioners invite the Court to reset a foundational eligibility parameter mid-process. A direction to substitute the notified cut-off date for age with a different date would necessarily entail reopening of the process, revisiting eligibility, and reworking the candidate pool. In a national-level recruitment involving thousands of applicants, such an order carries an obvious systemic cost and immediate third-party prejudice. Article 226 does not operate in a vacuum. Where a recruitment process is substantially underway, judicial intervention is reserved for clear illegality, demonstrable mala fides, or a breach of binding statutory rules, and not for re-casting eligibility norms because a different policy choice might have caused less individual hardship.

7. Second, the petitions suffer from delay in the only sense that matters in recruitment cases, namely, the stage at which relief is sought. The Petition