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.

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 not have attained the age of 45 years on the 1st day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of the applications. The upper age limit would be relaxed by 5 years in case of candidates belonging to the reserved categories. The petitioners were less than 35 years of age on the crucial date. As per the said Rules thus, they were not eligible for selection. They have therefore challenged the vires of Rule 33(i) of the said Rules which prescribes the eligibility for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge. Their contention is that fixation of minimum age of 35 years as eligibility criteria is bad in law.

5. The case of the petitioners is that in several other States such as Delhi and Karnataka, the requirement of minimum age has been done away with. The same should also be applied in the State of Rajasthan.

6. The High Court administration has filed reply in one of the petitions though in other petitions, reply has not yet been filed. However, issues being identical, it is not necessary to have the reply of the High Court brought on record in all matters. In such reply, it is pointed out that the said Rules are framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 233 and 234 read with Article 309 of the Constitution. The petitioners have not made out any ground for declaring the Rule in question as ultra-vires. It is pointed out that the Shetty Commission also recommended that the direct recruitment as a District Judge should not be made of a candidate who is less than 35 years of age. It is pointed out that the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association and others Vs. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 has approved the Shetty Commission recommendations with certain modifications. Thus, the Rule in question even otherwise is in consonance with the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission. It is pointed out that similar challenge was made before the Gauhati High Court and Patna High Court and the petitions were dismissed.

7. In such background, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there has to be uniformity of the age criteria for appointment in all States. The lower age limit required in the State of Rajasthan places the candidates at a disadvantageous position since the younger advocates in Delhi and Karnataka can apply. Learned counsel submitted that the age limit contained in the Rules has no nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved and therefore is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is lastly contended that Article 233(2) prescribes minimum experience of seven years for a lawyer for direct recruitment as a District Judge. Once a candidate fulfills this requirement, thereafter there is no further need to prescribe minimum age.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel Dr. Sachin Acharya