The court emphasized that the age limit or cut off date cannot be challenged for violation of Article 14 unless it is per se arbitrary or illogical, and that fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of the Government as long as the reasons are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration.

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 eligible to appear at the examination, if he is: -

a) a citizen of India;

b) a person practicing as an Advocate in India or a person qualified to be admitted as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961; and

c) not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January following the date of commencement of the examination.”

5. The Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2014 were notified on 18.02.2014 and as per the said Notification, the eligibility criteria is as under:-

“Not more than 32 years as on 1st January, 2015 i.e. on 1st day of January following the date of commencement of the examination.”

6. The aforesaid eligibility criteria notified in the Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2014 is as per the eligibility and requirement stipulated in Rule 14 of the Rules, 1970.

7. The contention of the Petitioners is that the last Delhi Judicial Services Examination was notified on 20.09.2011; thereafter preliminary examination was held on 18.12.2011 and the main examination was held on 9-10th June, 2012. No examinations were held in the years 2012 and 2013. Thus, the Petitioners have been denied right to appear and chance to get selected in Delhi Judicial Services. Reference is made to Rule 13 of the Rules, 1970 which provides that the competitive examination should be conducted preferably twice a year, subject to vacancy position. On queries made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Petitioners were informed that the Delhi Judicial Services Examination were not held in the year 2012-2013 due to paucity of court rooms and infrastructure and therefore the vacancies were not notified. This was not the fault of the Petitioners and they would be wrongly denied an opportunity to appear for selection in the Delhi Judicial Services as they would be more than 32 years of age as on 01.01.2015. This would not have been the position in case the Delhi Judicial Services Examinations were held in the years 2012 and 2013.

8. Our attention is drawn to a quotation from a recent judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand in case of Bhola Nath Rajak & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P. (S) No.7526 of 2013, decided on 16.01.2014, wherein the following observations have been made:-

“8. Admittedly no examination for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Munsif) was held after 2008. In absence of regular examination for recruitment of Judicial Officers in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Munsif), the petitioners could not appear for the examination. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioners and similarly placed candidates have completed the maximum age of 35 years. By the reason of delay in holding the examination, the writ petitioners should not be disqualified from appearing in the examination.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance