Case Background
This case was heard by the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4882 of 2022. Four doctors working as Ayush Medical Officers on contract in Bihar approached the Court.
They had been appointed on contract basis under an advertisement dated 26.03.2008. According to them, these contractual appointments were made against sanctioned posts which had existed for more than 12 years. They also claimed that their services had not been regularised despite this, and referred to a General Administration Department Memo No. 10/ijh0-1401/74-1408-dk0 dated 13 June 1974 in support of their assertion that they “fully deserve” regularisation.
In 2020, the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) issued Advertisement Nos. 04/2020 to 09/2020 for regular appointment to the post of Ayush Medical Officer. The last date for submitting online applications under these advertisements was fixed as 28.10.2020.
The four petitioners were over the maximum age prescribed in the advertisements. Because of this, they could not submit online applications. The online system itself would not accept their forms due to age bar.
More than a year later, in 2022, they filed this writ petition before the Patna High Court. They did not challenge the advertisement at the time it was issued, nor before the closing date of 28.10.2020.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners’ main prayer was for a direction to the authorities to allow them to submit online forms and participate in the recruitment process under Advertisement Nos. 04/2020 to 09/2020, by completely relaxing the upper age limit.
They argued that they had never been given any chance to participate in regular recruitment between 1998 and 2020. They pointed out that no advertisement for regular appointment to their posts had been issued in that period in which they could have applied.
They further stated that they had been working as Ayush Medical Officers on contract since the 2008 advertisement and that the posts were long-sanctioned. They suggested that, in such a situation, they deserved regularisation in terms of the General Administration Department Memo dated 13 June 1974.
Apart from relaxation of age, the petitioners also sought a direction to the authorities to give proper and lawful weightage in selection for regular appointment on the post of Ayush Medical Officer. For this, they relied on Memo No. 3/,e0-13/2018-12534 dated 17.09.2018 issued by the General Administration Department (Annexure-4).
In simple terms, they wanted two things from the Court: first, permission to apply for the 2020 recruitment despite being overage; and second, weightage for their contractual service when that selection is conducted.
The Court first recorded some undisputed facts. All four petitioners were overage for the recruitment under Advertisement Nos. 04/2020 to 09/2020. Under the terms of the advertisement, they were not entitled to any age relaxation that could bring them within the eligible range.
The Court noted that the petitioners knew very well that, if they tried to submit applications online before 28.10.2020, the system would reject them because of the age bar. Therefore, if they wanted any relief, they should have approached the Court before the last date, asking for a direction to the authorities to accept their forms with age relaxation.
Instead, they waited until 2022 to file the writ petition. By this time, the last date of 28.10.2020 had long passed. The Court considered this delay important.
The judge then examined whether the High Court, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could extend or change the cut-off date for applying or for age eligibility in a recruitment process.
The Court held that it has no such power. Under Article 226, the High Court can issue writs and directions to enforce legal rights, but it cannot step into the shoes of the administration to fix or alter cut-off dates for selection and appointment. The fixing of a cut-off date is a policy decision of the State.
Therefore, once the State and the recruiting body (BTSC) had set 28.10.2020 as the last date for submitting applications, the Court could not extend this date or reopen the recruitment to accommodate the petitioners.
The Court specifically observed that the last date prescribed in the advertisement dated 28.10.2020 “cannot be extended beyond 28th March, 2022.” By mentioning 28 March 2022, the Court indicated that the petition, filed well after the recruitment closed, could not be used as a means to revive an old process.
The Court then considered when the “cause of action” arose for the petitioners. It held that their cause of action existed prior to 28.10.2020. If they believed they should be allowed to participate despite being overage, they should have approached the Court before that date and sought directions accordingly.
Because they failed to do so and approached the Court only in 2022, the Court found that they had not made out a case for any relief. The judgment does not record any detailed discussion on regularisation or weightage; the focus is squarely on the limitation of the Court’s powers regarding cut-off dates and the petitioners’ delay.
In the end, the Court concluded that it could not grant the petitioners’ request to relax the age limit or extend the application deadline for the 2020 recruitment. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
No further directions were issued regarding regularisation of their services or granting weightage in future selections. The judgment ends with a clear statement that the petitioners have not made out a case, and therefore the petition stands dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision has practical importance for candidates who wish to challenge recruitment conditions, especially age limits and cut-off dates.
The Patna High Court made it clear that if a candidate believes they are being unfairly kept out of a recruitment because of age or similar conditions, they must approach the Court before the last date for submitting applications.
Once the last date passes, the Court is very unlikely to interfere. It will not extend the cut-off date or reopen the recruitment just for a few candidates. The power to fix such dates lies with the State and the recruiting body as a matter of policy.
For contractual employees, the judgment also shows that long service on contract does not automatically entitle them to special age relaxation in a later regular recruitment, unless such relaxation is already provided by the government’s policy or advertisement.
In simple terms, people in similar situations should watch recruitment notices carefully and act promptly. If they want to challenge any condition, including age bar, they should take legal steps before the deadline passes.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can the Patna High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, direct the State and BTSC to relax the upper age limit and extend the last date for applications for the 2020 Ayush Medical Officer recruitment so that overage contractual doctors can apply in 2022?
Answer: No. The Court held that fixing the cut-off date for age and applications is a policy decision of the State, and the High Court has no power to prescribe or extend such dates. Since the petitioners’ cause of action arose before 28.10.2020 and they approached the Court only in 2022, they were not entitled to any relief.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No previous judgments are cited or relied upon in the text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4882 of 2022
Case Title: Dr. Ras Bihari Tiwari and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Date of Judgment: 05.04.2022
Citation: 2022 (2) PLJR 458
Advocates: For the petitioners: Mr. Haridayal Kumar, Advocate; For the State: Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha (GA 8); For BTSC: Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate.
Respondents: State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Health Department; Principal Secretary, Health Department; Principal Secretary, Department of Finance; Director (Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy), Deshi Chikitsa, Department of Health; Chairman, Bihar Technical Service Commission; Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking age relaxation and permission to participate in recruitment to the post of Ayush Medical Officer, along with weightage for contractual service.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
