The Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim relief to a practicing advocate barred from applying for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor solely due to an upper age limit, holding that the State’s prolonged delay in initiating recruitment cannot be visited upon the petitioner. This order establishes a critical equitable principle: administrative laches cannot justify denial of opportunity to qualified candidates.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Santosh Gopikishan Bharadiya, is a practicing advocate who sought to apply for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor under Advertisement No. 006/2026 issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) on 18 March 2026. The advertisement prescribed an upper age limit of 38 years for eligibility. The petitioner, having exceeded this limit, was ineligible under the stated rules. He contended that the delay in initiating the recruitment process was attributable entirely to the State, and that he should not be penalized for administrative inaction.
Key Facts
- The petitioner has been enrolled as an advocate since 2005 and has over two decades of standing at the bar.
- The Supreme Court, in its order dated 03.12.2019, directed all States to complete the appointment process for Additional Public Prosecutors within six months of the order.
- Despite this directive, the State of Maharashtra did not forward the requisition to the MPSC until 11 February 2025.
- The impugned advertisement was issued only on 18 March 2026 - over six years after the Supreme Court’s directive.
- The petitioner’s age as of the application deadline exceeded 38 years due to this delay.
- The petitioner had previously applied for similar posts and was consistently barred on age grounds despite his extensive experience.
Procedural History
- 03.12.2019: Supreme Court directs States to complete appointments of Additional Public Prosecutors within six months.
- 11.02.2025: State of Maharashtra forwards requisition to MPSC.
- 18.03.2026: Advertisement No. 006/2026 issued by MPSC with 38-year upper age limit.
- 19.04.2026: Petitioner files Writ Petition (ST) No. 11621 of 2026 seeking relaxation of age limit.
- 20.04.2026: High Court passes ad-interim order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Relaxation of the upper age limit of 38 years to account for his length of standing at the bar.
- Permission to submit his application for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor under Advertisement No. 006/2026.
- A direction to the State to amend the recruitment rules to include a provision for age relaxation in cases of administrative delay.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State’s prolonged and unjustified delay in initiating a recruitment process for a public office can justify denying a qualified candidate the opportunity to apply, solely on account of an inflexible upper age limit.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Bharat Shinde, counsel for the petitioner, relied on the Supreme Court’s directive dated 03.12.2019 and cited prior orders of this Court granting ad-interim relief in similar circumstances, including an order dated 09.04.2026. He argued that the petitioner’s extensive experience and standing at the bar made him eminently suitable for the role, and that the age limit, while generally valid, cannot be rigidly applied when the delay is attributable to the State. He invoked principles of equity, natural justice, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
For the Respondent
The State, represented by Ms. Neha S. Bhide and Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, did not contest the factual timeline of delay. However, it argued that the recruitment rules were statutory and could not be altered by judicial order without a formal amendment. It maintained that relaxing the age limit for one candidate would open the floodgates for similar claims and undermine the uniformity of the selection process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the State’s failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s 2019 directive, noting that the six-month timeline had been exceeded by over five years. It observed that the petitioner, despite being otherwise eligible and qualified, was excluded not due to any deficiency in his credentials, but solely because of the State’s inaction.
"The Petitioner should not be made to suffer on account of delay on the part of the Respondent-State in taking the necessary steps towards such appointments."
The Court emphasized that while recruitment rules are generally binding, they are not immune to equitable intervention when their rigid application leads to manifest injustice caused by the very authority that framed them. The Court distinguished this case from ordinary applications for relaxation, noting that the delay was systemic, unexplained, and directly caused the petitioner’s ineligibility.
The Court further held that granting ad-interim relief in this instance would not set a precedent for general relaxation, but would merely correct a specific wrong caused by administrative failure.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded in obtaining ad-interim relief. The Court directed the State to accept the petitioner’s application, whether submitted online or offline, by 5.00 p.m. on 21 April 2026, for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor under Advertisement No. 006/2026. The order is expressly subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and does not confer any permanent right or equity. The State was directed to file its affidavit-in-reply by 24 April 2026, and the petitioner may file a rejoinder by 30 April 2026. The matter is listed for hearing on 05 May 2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Delay Can Justify Equitable Relief
- Practitioners may now invoke this judgment to seek age relaxation or procedural concessions when recruitment delays by the State directly cause eligibility disqualification.
- The burden shifts to the State to justify why a delay should not be excused in individual cases, particularly where the candidate has substantial professional experience.
Ad-Interim Relief Is Available Even Without Final Rule Amendment
- Courts may grant interim relief to prevent irreparable harm even if the underlying rule cannot be amended immediately.
- This does not require a formal amendment to recruitment rules - equitable intervention suffices at the interim stage.
Narrow Scope of Relief Is Critical
- The Court emphasized that this order applies only to the petitioner and does not create a general right.
- Practitioners must clearly demonstrate that the delay was attributable to the State and not due to personal inaction or procedural lapses.
No Precedent for General Relaxation
- This judgment does not authorize blanket age relaxation for all candidates affected by delays.
- Each case must be evaluated on its own facts, with clear evidence of State-caused delay and the candidate’s merit.
Application Timing Is Crucial
- Candidates must file petitions promptly upon discovering their disqualification due to State delay.
- Delay in filing the writ petition itself may defeat the claim, as equitable relief requires clean hands and prompt action.
