Case Background
The petitioner is a General Duty Medical Officer engaged on a contract basis at Additional Primary Health Centre, Sherpur, Maner, in the district of Patna.
He was appointed against a sanctioned post for two years through an advertisement bearing Memo No. 2/M-61/2020-608(2) dated 24 March 2021. His contractual employment began from 18 March 2024.
On 10 March 2025, the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) issued Advertisement No. 19 of 2025. This advertisement was for permanent selection and recruitment on sanctioned vacant posts of General Medical Practitioner in the State of Bihar.
Applications were to be submitted between 11 March 2025 and 8 April 2025. Clause 2 of the advertisement fixed the minimum and maximum ages for candidates as on 1 August 2024 and also provided different upper age limits for various categories.
The petitioner, whose date of birth is 4 January 1973, was about 53 years old on the date of the judgment. He wanted to submit an application for the permanent post under Advertisement No. 19 of 2025 but was over the general upper age limit.
He therefore approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction seeking directions to BTSC and the Health Department authorities to permit him to apply by relaxing his age, and to stay the ongoing form-filling process under the advertisement.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner’s main request was that the respondents, particularly BTSC, should allow him to fill the recruitment form for the post of General Medical Officer under Advertisement No. 19 of 2025 by relaxing his over-age condition.
He relied on Gazette Notification No. 12534 dated 18 September 2018 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar. According to him, this notification allowed contractual employees working on sanctioned posts to get age relaxation till their contractual employment continued.
He further argued that Clause 2 of Advertisement No. 19 of 2025, which fixed the general upper age limit, should not be applied to him. In his view, that clause was meant for “fresher applicants” and not for employees already working on contract in government hospitals. He also claimed that applying the clause to him was discriminatory and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Court first noted the structure of Clause 2 of the BTSC advertisement. The qualifying age for General Medical Practitioner was 21 years as on 1 August 2024.
The upper age limits were:
- 37 years for General Category candidates;
- 40 years for General Women Category candidates;
- 40 years for Backward Class and Extremely Backward Class candidates (male and female); and
- 42 years for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates.
Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 stated that for candidates working in a government hospital on contractual basis, there would be relaxation of age for the entire period of their contract, applied on the upper age limit.
The Court then considered the petitioner’s reliance on the gazette notification dated 18 September 2018. Clauses 8 and 9 of that notification deal with the benefit to contractual employees working against sanctioned posts.
From Clause 9, the Court noted that an employee working on contractual basis on a permanent post is entitled to two types of benefits when regular recruitment is undertaken:
- relaxation of age; and
- weightage based on work experience.
However, the High Court emphasised that “relaxation of age” does not mean unlimited relaxation. The Court held that if a contractual employee is appointed on a permanent post on a contractual basis for a particular period of two or three years, then relaxation can be given only to that extent over and above the upper age limit fixed for regular candidates.
In other words, the benefit is that the maximum age bar can be extended by the length of the contractual service. It is not a licence to erase the age limit itself.
Applying this understanding, the Court examined the petitioner’s position. The petitioner had been appointed on a contractual basis on 18 March 2024 for two years. At the time of his appointment, he was around 51 years old.
Under Advertisement No. 19 of 2025, the upper age limit for general category candidates was 37 years. If a candidate has a two-year contract, he may get age relaxation for a further two years, making the effective limit 39 years.
The Court pointed out that the relaxation contemplated is an extension of the age bar up to the length of contractual service, not beyond. Hence, a candidate appointed on contract at about 51 years of age cannot claim that he should be allowed to participate in the regular recruitment even at 53, simply because he is on contract for two years.
The Court described such an interpretation as contrary to basic norms of service jurisprudence. It observed that accepting the petitioner’s view would lead to “anomalous circumstances” where there might effectively be no age limit for regular appointment of contractual employees working in regular posts.
The judgment clearly records that the Court was “afraid to hold” that a contractual employee engaged at 51 years of age is entitled to get age relaxation for two more years, up to 53 years, in a recruitment where the notified upper age limit for general category candidates is 37 years.
Thus, the Court rejected the interpretation suggested by the petitioner that the 2018 gazette notification automatically extended the upper age limit for him for as long as his contract continues.
With this reasoning, the High Court held that there was no merit in the writ petition. The request for directions to allow form-filling with relaxed age, and to stay the recruitment process under Advertisement No. 19 of 2025, was not accepted.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision has direct implications for contractual government employees in Bihar, especially doctors and other staff working on sanctioned posts on a temporary basis.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that age relaxation under the 18 September 2018 gazette notification and under BTSC advertisements is limited. It is restricted to the period of contractual service and cannot wipe out the notified upper age limit entirely.
For contractual employees hoping to secure permanent posts, this means that they must still fall reasonably close to the regular age limits. The benefit of contract-based age relaxation will only add some years, tied to the duration of the contract, and not create an open-ended right to participate in recruitment at any age.
The ruling also safeguards the recruitment process from becoming unfair to younger candidates who are within the prescribed age limits. It prevents a situation where much older contractual staff could continuously claim eligibility simply because their contracts are renewed.
For the administration, particularly BTSC and the Health Department, the judgment provides judicial backing for enforcing clear upper age limits while still giving limited preference to contractual workers through controlled age relaxation and possible weightage.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether a contractual General Duty Medical Officer working against a sanctioned post is entitled, under the 18 September 2018 gazette notification and BTSC Advertisement No. 19 of 2025, to unlimited relaxation of the upper age limit for regular appointment.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that age relaxation for such contractual employees is confined to the period of their contractual service and cannot extend to remove or effectively nullify the notified upper age limit. - Issue: Whether Clause 2 of Advertisement No. 19 of 2025, prescribing upper age limits, should be treated as inapplicable or discriminatory when applied to existing contractual medical officers.
Answer: No. The Court did not accept that Clause 2 was confined only to freshers or that its application to contractual employees was discriminatory, and it upheld the operation of the clause.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment refers to a Supreme Court decision in “Uma Devi” and another in “Veer Kunwar Singh University” within the reproduced Hindi text of the 2018 gazette notification. However, the Patna High Court does not base its own reasoning on any specific reported citation in this order.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5916 of 2025
Case Title: Dr. Jitendra Kumar Tiwary @ Dr. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari @ Jitendra Kumar Tiwary @ Jitendra Kumar Tiwari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Citation: 2026 (3) PLJR 85
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging age-bar conditions in a recruitment advertisement and seeking age relaxation for a contractual General Duty Medical Officer.
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Hridayal Kumar, Advocate
- For the State (Respondent Nos. 1–3): Mr. J. K. Roy No. 1, SC-13; Mr. B. B. Prasad, AC to SC-13
- For BTSC (Respondent Nos. 4–5): Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Akshansh Shankar, Advocate
Date of Judgment: 17 January 2026
CAV Date: 7 January 2026
Link to Judgment: Official Patna High Court judgment
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.
