IMPORTANT POINTS
Judicial pronouncements do not override prevailing rules.
Rules 8(1) and 12 are valid.
Validity of Rule cannot be made to depend on cases of individual hardship.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 15704 of 2018.

2. This batch of cases consists of two writ petitions under Article 32 and a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

3. The constitutional validity of Rules 8(1) and 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975[Rules of 1975] is in issue in these proceedings. Rules 8 and 12 are extracted below:-

"8. Number of appointments to be made - (1) The Court, shall, from time to time, but not later than three years from the last recruitment, fix the number of officers to be taken at the recruitment keeping in view the vacancies then existing and likely to occur in the next two years.

(2) If at any selection the number of selected direct recruits available for appointment is less than the number of recruits decided by the Court to be taken from that source, the Court may increase correspondingly the number of recruits to be taken by promotion from the Nyayik Sewa;

Provided that the number of vacancies filled in as aforesaid under this sub rule shall be taken into consideration while fixing the number of vacancies to be allotted to the quota of direct recruits at the next recruitment, and the quota for direct recruits may be raised accordingly; so, however, that the percentage of direct recruits in the service does not in any case exceed 25% of strength of the service.

12. Age - A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January next following the year in which the notice inviting applications is published;

Provided that the upper age limit shall be higher by three years in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and such other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time."

4. On 10 May 2018, an advertisement was issued for direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service[UPHJS]. The petitioners applied for selection. The validity of Rule 8(1) was challenged before the Allahabad High Court in Gauri Shankar Prasad vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Writ A. No. 13309/2018. By its judgment dated 31 May 2018, a Division Bench of the High Court noted that the Rules have been upheld by a co-ordinate Bench in Suraj Bali Singh vs. Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Writ A. 20708 of 2012 ("Suraj Bali Singh") decided on 8 May 2017. The Division Bench followed its binding precedent and held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The High Court also observed that nothing prevented the petitioner from appearing in the recruitment process in 2012 and 2016 and hence, it was not open to him to make a grievance of being age barred in terms of the advertisement for 2018.

5. In the Special Leave Petition arising from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, an interim direction was issued on 18 June 2018, permitting the appellant to appear in the preliminary examination for the Higher Judicial Service and for the main examination. The result was directed to be kept in a sealed cover.

6. Insofar as the petitioner in the proceedings under Article 32 is concerned [WP (C) 1343 of 2019], an admit card was issued to him to appear in the preliminary examination in July 2018 and he was declared to be successful. The High Court published a list of candidates who had obtained qualifying marks but could not be allowed to proceed to the next stage. The name of the petitioner appeared in that list as a candidate who is debarred on grounds of age. The petitioner submitted a representation to the High Court. Not having found redressal, he moved these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner belongs to a reserved category but has crossed the extended age limit of forty eight years. This date of birth is 1 January 1971.

7. The petitioner in the accompanying writ petition [Writ Petition (C) No. 1382 of 20