The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules did not provide for age relaxation for SC and ST candidates, and previous judgments had held that no age relaxation was possible under the Rules.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

Aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) in the exam of 2017, the Petitioner who belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC) seeks quashing of the notice dated 10th July, 2019 issued by the High Court for conducting the DHJS Examination 2017. The further relief sought is for a direction to the High Court to consider the Petitioner's candidature for interview pursuant to Rule 22 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (DHJS Rules) and the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 8th December, 1971 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India.

2. The short ground on which the above reliefs are sought is that the High Court ought to have provided for age relaxation for SC candidates. Admittedly, at the time that the Petitioner took the exam, he was above the maximum age of eligibility in terms of Rule 9 (3) of the DHJS Rules, which requires a direct recruit candidate to have attained 35 years but not have exceeded 45 years, on the first day of January of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that the rejection of his candidature for the reason that he was above the maximum age of eligibility is contrary to Rule 22 of the DHJS Rules, which states that reservation of posts for SC and Scheduled Tribe (ST) shall be in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time. It is contended that the High Court ought to have followed the aforementioned OM dated 8th December, 1971 issued by the DoPT, in terms of which the maximum age limit prescribed for appointment to a service/post should be increased by 5 years in the case of candidates belonging to SC and ST.

4. The admitted position is that in the notification dated 23rd December, 2017 issued by the High Court for the DHJS examination 2017, no age relaxation for SC and ST candidates was provided. However, the Petitioner was able to sit for the written exams in view of an interim order dated 21st February, 2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1665 of 2018 (Pawan Kumar v. Union of India). The said interim order reads thus:

"Issue notice. Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Union of India; Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Advocate appearing for Delhi High Court accepts notice; and, Ms. Avinash Ahlawat, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Lt. Governor.

Counter affidavits shall be filed within three weeks. The applicant/petitioner questions the omission to provide for relaxation to SC/ST candidates in line with the Central Government's circulars/notifications. Petitioner relies on Rule 22 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1970 which refers to the Central Government's circulars with respect to reservation policies to be adopted by the High Court establishment with regard to recruitment and promotion of Judicial Officers and Higher Judicial Service Officers. The High Court apparently had formed an opinion that in the absence of any express provision for relaxation for any category (including reserved category candidates) such relaxation cannot be permitted. It is urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the meaning and purport of Rule 22 is to incorporate, as and when necessary, all the policies of the Central Government through the various circulars concerning recruitment and other matters relating to SC/ST candidates. Therefore, with respect to extent of reservation and other terms, in the absence of any indication in the Rules (in the present case Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules), the position spelt out in the circulars/Government orders is to prevail. In support of this submission, several judgements of the Supreme Court including the latest judgement by the Constitution bench in Rohtas Bhankar vs. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 872 are relied upon.

After considering the issue, this Court is of the opinion that as an interim measure and in the interest of justice, the applicant