SANJIV KHANNA, G.P.MITTAL
Gaurav Mehta – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi – Respondent
Sanjiv Khanna J. (Oral)
1. The Petitioners herein in alternative seek modification or amendment of Rule 14 (c) of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970 (Rules, 1970 for short) fixing the maximum eligibility age limit for candidates to appear in the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2014.
2. This Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot modify or amend recruitment rules, i.e. Recruitment Rules of Delhi Judicial Service. This Court has power of judicial review and can examine constitutional vires of any provision including the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970 while exercising the writ jurisdiction but cannot legislate or rewrite the rule. The alternative prayer therefore made in the writ petition does not require consideration or acceptance.
3. The main prayer made in the writ petition is that Rule 14 of the Rules, 1970 is ultra vires and violates fundamental rights of the Petitioners under Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India as the petitioners are not eligible to appear in the Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2014.
4. Rule 14 of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970 reads as under:-
“14. A candidate shall be eligib
Sanjiv Kumar Sahay & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2008 (2) JLJR 543
Ramarao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association, (2004) 2 SCC 76
University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary, (1996) 10 SCC 536
Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works (1975) 1 SCC 305
State of Bihar v. Bihar Pensioners Samaj, (2006) 5 SCC 65
Malik Mazhar Sultan & An. V. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.