1. Challenge to age requirements for judicial service examinations — upper age limit for lower judicial service and minimum and upper age limits for higher judicial service. (Para 2 , 4 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 840
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, Hima Kohli, JJ.
High Court of Delhi -Appellant
Versus
Devina Sharma - Respondent
Civil Appeal No 2016 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 4452 of 2022), With Civil Appeal Nos 2017-2020 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos 4432-4435 of 2022)
Decided On : 14-03-2022
Important Points
The High Court's administrative powers, rule-making authority, and the validity of age limits for judicial service examinations were central to the judgment.
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.136, Art.226, Art.233, Art.235
DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES: R.14(c), R.9(3)
DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES: R.14(c), R.9(3)
Headnote
Age Limit - Judicial Service Examinations - Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970 - Article 233 of the Constitution - Shetty Commission Recommendations - High Court's Administrative Powers
Fact of the Case:
The case involved challenges to the upper age limit for the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) examination and the minimum age requirement for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) examination. The High Court had issued notifications for conducting the examinations, but the rules were amended, leading to grievances from candidates who would have qualified under the previous rules.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the High Court's decision to postpone the examinations and extend the application deadlines was justified due to the exceptional circumstances, and it allowed candidates who would have qualified under the previous rules to participate in the ensuing examinations as a one-time measure.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the age limits for the DJS and DHJS examinations, the impact of rule amendments, and the exercise of the High Court's administrative powers.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the High Court's exercise of administrative powers to reschedule examinations and extend application deadlines was justified in the circumstances. It also upheld the validity of the minimum age requirement for the DHJS examination, citing the Shetty Commission recommendations and the High Court's rule-making authority.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the appeals, permitting candidates affected by the rule changes to participate in the examinations and directing the High Court to upload a corrigendum indicating the relaxation of age limits on its website.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether age limits should be relaxed due to postponed examinations and whether prescribing a minimum age for higher judicial service violates constitutional requirements. (Para 5 , 8 , 21 )
3. Institutional delays justify one-time age relaxations; High Courts may prescribe minimum age for maturity and experience, supplementing constitutional silence via rule-making power. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. High Courts are entitled to prescribe minimum age requirements for judicial appointments under their rule-making authority to ensure maturity, as the Constitution is silent on this. (Para 26 , 27 )
5. One-time age relaxation granted for both services; minimum age for higher judicial service upheld; application deadlines extended and examinations rescheduled. (Para 19 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 32 )
6. Can High Courts prescribe a minimum age for appointment as a District Judge despite Article 233's silence?
Yes. Article 233 prescribes minimum experience but not minimum age. High Courts can use their rule-making authority to prescribe a minimum age to ensure candidates possess sufficient maturity and experience for senior judicial roles. (Para 26 , 27 )
7. Is the prescription of age cut-offs for judicial recruitment considered a matter of policy?
Yes. The determination of cut-off ages for entry into service is essentially a matter of policy, and courts generally defer to such policy decisions made by the relevant authorities. (Para 25 )
8. Under what circumstances can age relaxations be granted for judicial service examinations?
Age relaxations may be granted as a one-time measure when examinations are not conducted on schedule due to institutional reasons or pandemics, preventing candidates from appearing through no fault of their own. (Para 18 , 19 , 28 , 29 )
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from orders of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 4 March 2022 and 8 March 2022. The petitions before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution have raised issues pertaining to the validity of:
(i) The upper age limit of 32 years for appearing for the Delhi Judicial Service 1 [“DJS”] examination; and
(ii) The minimum age requirement of 35 years for appearing for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service 2 [“DHJS”] examination.
3. The High Court of Delhi issued notifications for conducting the examinations for DJS and DHJS on 23 February 2022. For the DJS, the last date for submission of forms is 20 March 2022 and the examination is scheduled to take place on 27 March 2022. For DHJS, the last date for submission of forms was 12 March 2022 while the date of the examination is 20 March 2022.
4. The bone of contention pertains to Rule 14(c) of the DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES 1970. Un-amended Rule 14(c) stipulated that a candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination if he is not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January following the date of commencement of the examination. The above rule was amended on 11 February 2022 so as to stipulate that a candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination if he is not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited. The High Court of Delhi conducted the last examination for recruitment to the DJS in 2019. It is common ground that no examination was held in 2020 for institutional reasons and in 2021 due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.
5. The grievance of the petitioners before the High Court is that candidates who would have qualified in terms of the upper age limit of 32 years for DJS, as stipulated in Rule 14(c), would now cease to be eligible by virtue of the fact that the examination is being held in March 2022. In terms of amended Rule 14(c) they would have crossed the age of 32 years on the 1st day of January of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited. In other words, it has been urged that if the High Court had conducted the examination on schedule in 2020 and 2021, such candidates would have qualified for the examination since they were within the age limit of 32 years for the relevant year.
6. When the petition was moved before the High Court, the Division Bench by its interim order dated 8 march 2022 directed that the date for receiving applications shall be rescheduled to a date after the next date of hearing and the date of holding the examination shall also be postponed. The proceedings were directed to be listed on 7 April 2022 before the same Bench which was seized of an earlier writ petition, Writ Petition (Civil) No 3636 of 2022 after obtaining the orders of the Chief Justice. Effectively therefore, by the interim order of the High Court, the examination for DJS which was scheduled to take place on 27 March 2022 would stand postponed.
7. Aggrieved by the interim order of the High Court, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution has been invoked by the High Court of Delhi on the administrative side.
8. The earlier petition before the High Court related to the recruitment process for DHJS which resulted in an interim order of the Division Bench dated 4 March 2022. The backdrop of the grievance before the High Court was that in 2019, the High Court had amended the DHJS Rules by a notification dated 26 December 2019. Rule 9(3) specifies the qualifications for direct recruits. The requirement of a minimum age of 35 years was deleted by the notification of the High Court dated 26 December 2019. Subsequently, by a notification dated 8 February 2022, Rule 9(3) was amended so as to stipulate the requirement that the candidate must have attained the age of 35 years. Rule 9(3) also provides that the candidate should not have attained
