Back
AKIL KURESHI, SUDESH BANSAL
Surendra Khatri – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. These petitions arise out of common background. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience we may refer to the facts as stated in Civil Writ Petition No. 5268/2021.
2. The petitioner No. 1 possesses the qualification of LLB and LLM from the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur. He has completed his LLB degree course in the year 2012 and is enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar Council of Rajasthan on 14.07.2012. Since then, he claims to be regularly practicing as an Advocate at Jodhpur.
3. Likewise, petitioner no. 2 possesses the qualification of LLB which he completed in the year 2012 and is enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar Council of Rajasthan on 28.08.2012 and since then he claims to be practicing regularly as an Advocate at Jodhpur.
4. The Rajasthan High Court issued a public advertisement on 05.01.2021 for the purpose of selection for the post of direct recruit District Judge in terms of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). The eligibility criteria for the post in question under the said Rules, besides others, were that the candidate must have attained the age of 35 years and must
The court affirmed that the minimum age requirement for District Judge recruitment is constitutionally valid, emphasizing the necessity of maturity and experience in judicial appointments.
The main legal point established is the application of Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 to determine the eligibility of candidates based on the age limit for the selection proces....
The court upheld the constitutionality of age limits in judicial recruitment rules, affirming that such regulations fall within the policy-making authority of the rule makers.
Deemed eligibility for recruitment is determined by the year of recruitment, not the year vacancies arose, as per the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.
The High Court's administrative powers, rule-making authority, and the validity of age limits for judicial service examinations were central to the judgment.
Point of law : Article 309 of the Constitution of India deals with the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State. The Article 309 provides the competence for the G....
The court established that amendments to recruitment rules are prospective and do not affect ongoing selection processes unless explicitly stated.
Point of law: Schedule III of the Rules of 2010 prescribes specific time schedule for determination and notification of the actual number of existing and expected vacancies in each cadre as also for ....
Point of Law : Employer is at liberty to legislate and provide conditions of recruitment and selection, including, age - Court would not substitute discretion of the employer until it is shown that t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
