vijayshettyonline 09 October 2026

Title: valid legal grounds for seeking further age relaxation for mpsc aspirants before the bombay h

I want to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking further age relaxation for MPSC aspirants, despite previous age relaxations granted by the Maharashtra Government in 2016, 2022 and 2024.

The main issue is that the previous relaxations were inadequate, and some candidates remain over-age and have lost opportunities to compete in public service recruitment.

What valid legal grounds can I raise to seek further age relaxation despite the previous relaxations? Can I argue that the earlier relaxations did not adequately compensate candidates for recruitment delays, irregular examination schedules and lost opportunities?

Can I ask the State Government and MPSC to explain on affidavit why the previous relaxations were considered sufficient, particularly if candidates remain excluded despite those measures?

Please identify legally sustainable grounds under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, relevant principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness, and any other applicable legal provisions. Explain the limitations of each ground and whether the Bombay High Court can direct further age relaxation or require the competent authority to reconsider the matter.

My objective is to establish valid grounds for additional age relaxation, not merely permission to appear provisionally in an examination. Please focus on the arguments that could support the petition and the evidence needed to substantiate them.

Reply Follow

Quick Summary

This discussion explores the legal arguments for filing a writ petition with the Bombay High Court to secure further age relaxation for MPSC aspirants. Despite previous government relaxations, the core issue is that these may have been insufficient to compensate for recruitment delays and lost opportunities. The conversation delves into potential grounds under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, focusing on principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness, and considers whether the High Court can compel reconsideration of the policy.

5 Replies

Dr. J C Vashista (Advocate ) 10 October 2026

I think High Court(s) cannot direct the employer to change its recruitment policy, however, you may try your luck through a local prudent lawyer.

vijayshettyonline 10 October 2026

Originally posted by : Dr. J C Vashista
	I think High Court(s) cannot direct the employer to change its recruitment policy, however, you may try your luck through a local prudent lawyer.

its about PSC sir

hon HC done multiple times directed

Dr. J C Vashista (Advocate ) 12 October 2026

Can you mention citation please.

P. Venu (Advocate) 14 October 2026

The Courts cannot issue in a policy unless there is manifest arbitrainess or perversity or illegality.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 15 October 2026

Filing a writ petitioin under article 226 of the consititution under article 14 of the constitution is suggested.

Under the doctrine established in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, an executive decision can be struck down if it is unreasonable or lacks an determining principle. If recruitment notifications were stalled for years due to administrative delays, litigation, or policy vacillation, imposing a rigid age cutoff penalizes candidates for systemic state inaction.

Candidates prepare for public service based on expected annual examination cycles. When the state fails to conduct examinations regularly, it defeats legitimate expectations. While legitimate expectation alone cannot override statutory rules, it serves as a foundation for demonstrating administrative unfairness.

Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment: Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment. Formal equality exists when an exam is opened to everyone under a specific age limit. However, if state delays prevent an entire cohort from competing during their eligible years, substantive equality is violated.

In a writ of mandamujs, the High Court can direct the State Government to consider representations from affected aspirants within a fixed timeline. The court may require the state to evaluate whether prior one-time relaxations adequately compensated for the exact duration of recruitment backlogs.

Petitioners can challenge government decisions on the grounds that a limited age extension (e.g., 1 year) is disproportionate to long multi-year gaps in recruitment cycles.

Rather than praying for a judicial order specifying a custom age limit, pray for a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra to form a committee or issue a revised Government Resolution (GR) providing proportionate relaxation for the delayed cycles.