Cut-off date for exam eligibility upheld; executive instructions cannot override statutory regulations and rules.

A cut-off date for age eligibility in a competitive examination will be upheld unless it is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or otherwise beyond a reasonable basis; the fact that a preliminary screening test was introduced before that date did not make the 1st August reference date invalid because the main examination remained the ining stage. Executive instructions also cannot override governing statutory regulations and examination rules, so the office memorandum could not prevail over the applicable framework. The tribunal's contrary view was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the benefit granted to the candidate was cancelled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether fixation of 1st August as the cut-off date for determining age eligibility in the competitive examination was arbitrary despite the introduction of a preliminary examination before that date; (ii) whether reliance on the Government office memorandum could prevail over the governing statutory regulations and rules.

Issue (i): Whether fixation of 1st August as the cut-off date for determining age eligibility in the competitive examination was arbitrary despite the introduction of a preliminary examination before that date.

Analysis: A cut-off date is open to judicial interference only if it is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or very wide of any reasonable mark. The preliminary examination was only a screening test and did not determine merit, while the main examination, which continued to be held after 1st August, remained the decisive stage. On that basis, retaining 1st August as the eligibility reference date could not be characterised as arbitrary.

Conclusion: The fixation of 1st August was not arbitrary and the challenge to the cut-off date failed.

Issue (ii): Whether reliance on the Government office memorandum could prevail over the governing statutory regulations and rules.

Analysis: Executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The relevant eligibility question was governed by the applicable regulations and examination rules, and the later office memorandum clarified the position for civil service examinations. The tribunal was therefore not justified in preferring the earlier memorandum over the statutory framework or in departing from the consistent earlier view without proper reference to a larger Bench.

Conclusion: The office memorandum could not override the statutory regulations and rules, and the tribunal's contrary view was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the appeal succeeded, and the benefit granted to the respondent stood cancelled.

Ratio Decidendi: A cut-off date fixed for eligibility will not be struck down unless it is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, and executive instructions cannot prevail over statutory regulations or rules.

---