$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 + LPA 96/2026, CM APPL. 13061/2026, CM APPL. 13062/2026 &

CM APPL. 13063/2026 ANJALI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhijit Anand, Advocate (through VC).

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shashank Bajpai with Ms. Aashna Mehra, Mr. Vaisal Tripathi, Mr.

Govind Singh Chauhan, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (Oral

1. This intra court Appeal is filed against the order dated 06.01.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed in W.P.(C) 94/2026 (“Writ Petition”) whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant has been dismissed.

2. The Writ Petition was filed by the Appellant seeking direction to quash and set aside the Notification dated 31.08.2025 issued by the Respondents for the recruitment of the Officer Scale-I Post for the Regional Rural Banks (“RRBs”) and issue fresh notification by revisiting / fixing cut-off date of age limit as 01.06.2025 or 01.04.2025 and also fix the lower age limit as 20 / 21 years. Consequently, the Appellant has also sought direction against the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to apply for the Officer Scale-I Post for RRBs.

3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondents conduct Common Recruitment Process (“CRP”) for the recruitment of Officer Scale-I Post for RRBs every year and the cut-off date of age limit of the candidates applying for the same is 01^st June of that year. However, for CRP for RRBs for the year 2025 (“CRP RRBs XIV”), the cut-off date for determining the age limit of the candidates was revised to 01.09.2025 instead of 01.06.2025. It was further submitted that no prior information / notice was circulated by the Respondent whereby around 40,000 to 50,000 candidates including the Appellant were left out from appearing in CRP RRBs XIV for the Officer Scale-I Post, which is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is well settled law that change of rule in mid-way for selection process is not permissible and any change in cut-off date for determining the age limit of the candidates should be widely circulated and in an absence of the same, equality of opportunity would not be available to all eligible candidates. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court as under:

• Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2025)

2 SCC 1 • Sivanandan C.T. & Ors. v. High Court of Kerala & Ors., (2024) 3 SCC 799 • Raj Kumar & Ors. v. Shakti Raj & Ors., (1997) 9 SCC 527

5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is well settled law that the age limit of candidates comes under the eligibility criteria and is part of qualification to be fixed by the rule-making body as held in Kuldip Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1995) SCC OnLine P&H 897.

6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that the mode of recruitment and the category from which the recruitment to the service should be made are all matters, which are exclusively within the domain of the executive and it is the function of the rule-making authority to provide the basis for selection as held in State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. V.

Sadanandam & Ors., (1989) Supp (1) SCC 574.

7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the calendar for conducting the examination for CRP RRBs XIV for the post of Officer Scale- I for RRBs was issued on 15.01.2025 by the Respondents and as per the said, the preliminary examination for the same was scheduled on 27.07.2025, 02.08.2025 and 03.08.2025 and the main examination was scheduled on 13.09.2025. However, the Respondents revised a calendar for conducting the examination for CRP RRBs XIV vide revised calendar dated 16.06.2025 and while issuing the Notification dated 31.08.2025, the cut-off date for determining the age limit of the candidates