Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

The constitutional validity of Rule 7(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (for short, 'the LJS Rules') has been called in question by the petitioner herein dubbing the above-stated rule to be suffering from vice of discrimination and to be manifestly arbitrary as well and thereby it be declared ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. The essential facts shorn of all paraphernalia to adjudicate the challenge to the aforesaid constitutional validity of the LJS Rules state as under:-

(2.1) The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short, 'the CG PSC') issued an advertisement on 6-2-2019 inviting applications for recruitment on 39 posts of Civil Judge (Entry Level) in accordance with the aforesaid Rules indicating the date of preliminary examination to be 7th of May, 2019, in response to that, the petitioner who is presently working as Planning Research Assistant in the Department of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Government of Chhattisgarh, submitted his application form through the on-line portal of the CG PSC, but the said on-line portal has refused to accept the petitioner's application on the ground that he does not fulfill the age criteria and he was not allowed to submit the form.

(2.2) The facts that have been brought out by the petitioner to question the constitutional validity of the above-mentioned Rule and to strike down the Rule is that, his date of birth is 22-7-1976 and according to Rule 7(1)(b) of the LJS Rules, the candidate should not exceed the age limit of 35 years on the first day of January of the next following year in which applications for appointment are invited. Thus, according to him, the age limit is to be calculated on the basis of the said i.e. Rule 7(1)(b) of the LJS Rules and according to him, with all permissible relaxation, the candidate should not exceed the age of 43 years after availing all the concessions as on 1-1-2020, but the maximum age limit is counted from the first day of January in which according to Rule 7(1)(b) of the LJS Rules, he would not be eligible for submitting his application form. It is the further case of the petitioner that Rule 7(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (for short, 'the HJS Rules') provides that the candidate must have attained the age of 35 years and has not attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January in the year in which applications for appointment are invited and according to the said Rule, he is eligible to appear in the examination. As such, Rule 7(1)(b) of the LJS Rules is in conflict with Rule 7(1)(b) of the HJS rules and therefore it suffers from vice of discrimination and also it is manifest arbitrary and thus, it is liable to be struck down as ultra vires.

3. Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that Rule 7(1)(b) of the LJS Rules providing cut-off date of the first day of January of the next following year in which applications for appointment are invited, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as such, it is discriminatory as well as arbitrary and therefore it is liable to be struck down. He would further submit that in the HJS Rules that have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Article 233 read with the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the cut-off date provided for eligibility is the first day of January in the year in which applications for appointment are invited, as such, there is no point in prescribing different cut-off dates for Civil Judge (Entry Level) and the person to be recruited under the HJS Rules, therefore, it is a case of discrimination and as such, Rule 7(1)(b) of the LJS Rules with the words "on the first day of January of the next following year in which applications for appointment are invited" be declared as ultra vires by str