The main legal point established in the judgment is that judicial recruitment is governed by specific rules, and age relaxation cannot be sought based on a Government Resolution when the judicial service rules do not provide for such relaxation.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for following relief :

(a) that this Hon’ble be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents to relax the age criteria pursuant to the advertisement no.270 of 2021.

3. Brief facts are as under :-

(i) On 23rd December 2021, Respondent No.2-MPSC issued an advertisement No.270 of 2021 for the post of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC). As per the said advertisement, the age limit for open category was fixed at 35 years as on 23rd December 2021.

(ii) The Petitioner, has completed age of 35 years on 24th November 2021 and therefore was age barred to apply for the post of JMFC since he was ineligible candidate for JMFC-2021 examination.

(iii) On 17th December 2021, the Respondent No.1-State issued a Government Resolution relaxing the age for direct service recruitment as a one time measure on account of pandemic.

(iv) On 3rd January 2022, the Petitioner made a representation to Respondent No.3-Registrar General High Court requesting that the Government Resolution of 17th December 2021 be made applicable to him. Similar representation was made by the Petitioner to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking age relaxation. However, the same was not granted and therefore the present petition is filed seeking age relaxation so that the Petitioner would be eligible to apply for the said post.

4. Submission of the Petitioner :-

The Petitioner relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and Anr. vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 703 contended that had Respondent No.2 adhered to the time-frame for issuing the advertisement as per the said decision then he would be eligible for applying to the JMFC post and since same was not followed by the Respondents, the impugned action is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court. The Petitioner further submitted that on conjoint reading of Articles 234 and 309 of the Constitution of India, the Government Resolution dated 17th December 2021 issued by Respondent No.1 is to be made applicable and thereby benefit of age relaxation should be granted. The Petitioner also relied upon the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 and more particularly Rule 4 to contend that since the appointing authority is the Governor, the Government Resolution issued in the name of Governor should be made applicable to his case. The Petitioner also relied upon Article 16 of the Constitution of India and submitted that since other citizens are given the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17th December 2021, he is seeking equal opportunity as mandated by Article 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore is justified in seeking age relaxation benefit. The Petitioner, therefore, prayed for seeking age benefit relaxation to be eligible for applying for the post of JMFC.

5. Submissions of the Amicus-curiae:-

Dr. Sathe, learned senior counsel appointed by the Court to assist submitted that the Petitioner is already age barred in November 2021 because as on the date of advertisement he had already cross the age of 35 years. The learned senior counsel also submitted that Respondent No.2 has conducted JMFC examination in the year 2019, 2020 and 2021 also. The learned senior counsel further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Bal Mukund Sah and Ors, (2000) 4 SCC 640. and contended that insofar as the judicial service is concerned it would be governed by the Judicial Service Rules and no other authority has the power to relax the age. The learned senior counsel further submitted that Government Resolution dated 17th December 2021 does not apply to the post of judicial services and furthermore even if it is applied