SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 308

Y. K. SABHARWAL, C. K. THAKKER
Malik Mazhar Sultan – Appellant
Versus
U. P. Public Service Commission – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI.—Leave granted.

2. The main question to be determined in these matters, which relates to the recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under U.P. Judicial Service Rules 2001 (for short ‘the Rules’), is as to the eligibility of some candidates from the point of view of age.

3. The High Court by the impugned judgment has held only those candidates eligible who were of requisite age as on 1st July, 2003. Is the High Court right in its conclusion or 1st July, 2001 or 1st July, 2002 is the relevant date for determining the age as a condition of eligibility as contended on behalf of those candidates who stand excluded as a result of the impugned judgment? The other viewpoint urged is that even 1st July, 2003 held by High Court as a date for determining eligibility of age is wrong and on correct interpretation of the Rules, the relevant date for determining age is 1st July, 2004. The circumstances giving rise to these issues may first be stated.

4. The U.P. Public Service Commission (for short ‘PSC’) was informed by letter of Government of U.P. dated 23rd November, 2002 that it has been decided to make appointment of 347 candidates on the basis of







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top