The Bombay High Court has held that candidates cannot be penalized for exceeding statutory age limits when the delay in conducting recruitment is attributable solely to the state. In a significant ruling, the Court granted ad interim relief to petitioners barred from applying for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor due to the State’s prolonged inaction, reinforcing the principle that administrative lassitude cannot deprive individuals of legitimate opportunities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, including Special Assistant Public Prosecutors (SAPPs) working on contractual basis and other eligible advocates, sought to apply for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor, Group A, under Advertisement No. 006/2026 issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) on 18 March 2026. The Recruitment Rules, 1997 prescribe a maximum age limit of 38 years for eligibility. Several petitioners had exceeded this limit by a few months due to the State’s failure to conduct the recruitment process for nearly a decade.
Key Facts
- The Maharashtra Additional Public Prosecutors, Group A, Recruitment Rules, 1997 set the upper age limit at 36 years, later revised to 38 years.
- A judgment dated 25 July 2017 by the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No. 5005 of 1999 directed the State to appoint Additional Public Prosecutors based on posts available as of 1997, with completion within three months.
- The State filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 24807 of 2017) against this order, which the Supreme Court dismissed on 3 December 2019, extending the compliance period by six months.
- Despite the Supreme Court’s directive, the State took no action until 11 February 2025, when it finally forwarded a requisition to the MPSC.
- The advertisement for recruitment was issued on 18 March 2026, over six years after the Supreme Court’s final order.
- The petitioners, many of whom had been serving as SAPPs on contract since 2015 - 2018, found themselves ineligible due to age, despite having fulfilled all other qualifications.
- Clause 12.2.6 of the advertisement required submission of an experience certificate from the competent authority, which the State had not issued despite repeated requests.
Procedural History
- 25 July 2017: Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) directs State to complete appointments within three months.
- 3 December 2019: Supreme Court dismisses SLP and extends compliance deadline by six months.
- 11 February 2025: State finally forwards requisition to MPSC.
- 18 March 2026: Advertisement No. 006/2026 issued with 38-year age cutoff.
- April 2026: Petitioners file multiple writ petitions before Bombay High Court seeking admission to the examination despite exceeding age limit.
- 9 April 2026: Bombay High Court passes ad interim order.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners argued that the delay in recruitment was entirely attributable to the State’s inaction, and that denying them the opportunity to apply would violate principles of equity, natural justice, and Article 14 of the Constitution. They emphasized their long-standing service as SAPPs and the State’s failure to act on judicial directives.
Respondent-State contended that the Recruitment Rules are statutory and cannot be altered by judicial order. It cited Writ Petition No. 2578 of 2026, withdrawn by petitioners with liberty to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, as evidence that the remedy lay elsewhere.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought immediate ad interim relief to allow them to submit applications for the examination under Advertisement No. 006/2026, despite exceeding the 38-year age limit. They also sought direction to the State to issue experience certificates to SAPPs, as required under Clause 12.2.6 of the advertisement.
The Legal Issue
Can the State deny candidates the opportunity to apply for a public post solely on the ground of exceeding the statutory age limit when the delay in conducting the recruitment process is attributable to the State’s own inaction, despite clear judicial directives?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Senior counsel Dr. Uday Warunjikar and Mr. Suresh Pakale relied on the doctrine of equitable estoppel and the principle that no one should benefit from their own wrong. They cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and Union of India v. Rameshwar Prasad to argue that administrative delay cannot be used as a shield to deny rights. They emphasized that the petitioners had been acting in good faith, relying on the State’s obligation to implement court orders, and that the age limit was a procedural formality, not a substantive disqualification.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Pleader, Mr. S.H. Kankal, argued that the Recruitment Rules are statutory instruments and cannot be modified by judicial fiat. He contended that the petitioners had previously withdrawn a similar petition with liberty to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, indicating an alternative remedy. He further argued that relaxing age limits would set a precedent undermining the integrity of recruitment processes across public services.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the timeline of judicial directives and State inaction. It noted that the Supreme Court’s order of 3 December 2019 was not merely advisory but binding, and that the State’s failure to act for over six years constituted a clear dereliction of duty.
"The Petitioners have, in the meantime, exceeded the cut off age limit prima facie, in view of the delay in appointment of the Additional Public Prosecutors by the Respondent-State. Although the Maharashtra Additional Public Prosecutors, Group A, Recruitment Rules, 1997 has prescribed cut off age as 36 years as amended to 38 years, we are of the prima facie opinion that the Petitioners should not be made to suffer on account of delay on the part of the Respondent-State in appointment of the Additional Public Prosecutors."
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on the withdrawn petition, distinguishing it on grounds of urgency and the specific nature of the relief sought. It held that the doctrine of laches cannot be invoked against individuals who have been rendered ineligible due to the State’s own procrastination. The Court emphasized that public recruitment must be conducted with fairness and that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice when the State is the cause of delay.
Regarding the experience certificate issue, the Court clarified that while the petitioners must apply for the certificate, the State cannot unreasonably withhold it, particularly where the petitioner has served continuously in the capacity claimed.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded in obtaining ad interim relief. The Court directed the State to accept applications from the petitioners for the examination under Advertisement No. 006/2026, provided such applications were submitted by 5.00 p.m. on 17 April 2026. The Court clarified that this order was strictly interim and without prejudice to the final adjudication of the writ petitions. The State was directed to file its affidavit-in-reply by 24 April 2026, and petitioners may file rejoinders by 30 April 2026. The Court further directed the State to consider and issue experience certificates to SAPPs upon application, in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay by the State Cannot Be Used to Disqualify Candidates
- Practitioners may now invoke equitable principles to challenge rigid eligibility criteria when the State’s delay is the proximate cause of disqualification.
- This ruling strengthens the argument that statutory age limits are not absolute when administrative inaction has caused the delay.
- Public sector recruitment bodies must now account for judicial timelines and avoid using procedural rules to evade compliance.
Experience Certificates Must Be Issued Promptly
- Government departments cannot withhold experience certificates as a tool of delay or coercion.
- Candidates serving in contractual or temporary capacities have a right to formal recognition of service, especially when such recognition is a prerequisite for competitive exams.
- Failure to issue certificates within a reasonable time may now be challenged as a violation of Article 14 and Article 21.
Interim Relief Is Available in Public Recruitment Disputes
- Courts are increasingly willing to grant interim relief in recruitment matters where irreparable harm is evident.
- This case sets a precedent for petitioners in similar situations across India, particularly in cases involving delayed implementation of court orders.
- Legal teams should now routinely plead for interim relief in recruitment cases where the State has failed to meet judicial deadlines.
