Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J., ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Roop Chand – Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, through Registrar General – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13068 of 2024
Decided On : 05-09-2024
Eligibility - Recruitment - Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 - Rule 33 - The court interpreted Rule 33 regarding age eligibility for District Judge recruitment, emphasizing that deemed eligibility is based on the year of recruitment, not the year vacancies arose, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's claim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to participate in the recruitment for District Judge posts, arguing that he was eligible based on age provisions in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, despite exceeding the age limit as of the recruitment date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not meet the age eligibility criteria as per the Rules of 2010, which clearly stipulate age limits based on the recruitment year, not the year vacancies arose.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was eligible to apply for the District Judge recruitment based on age criteria outlined in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that deemed eligibility under Rule 33 pertains to the recruitment year, and the petitioner exceeded the age limit despite relaxation provisions.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Heard on admission.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of writ of mandamus/directions to allow him to participate in the recruitment process for selection on posts in the cadre of District Judge initiated vide notification dated 09.07.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the existing and applicable provisions contained in Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (for short ‘the Rules of 2010’) if a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age to appear at the examination in any year in which no such examination was held, he/she shall be deemed to be entitled in respect of his/her age to appear at the next following examination.
4. It is contended that applying the aforesaid prescription of the Rules of 2010, clause-10 of the advertisement dated 09.07.2024 clearly provides that for this recruitment, age is being calculated on the basis of 01.01.2025. Therefore, the candidates, who would have been eligible in respect of his/her age as on 01.01.2023 & 01.01.2024, are also entitled to apply for the post, if otherwise eligible.
5. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prescription in the Rule read with clause-10 of the advertisement is required to be construed rationally to mean that such eligibility must relate to the year in which the vacancies arose, but recruitment could not be held to fill up those vacancies. Referring to the contents of the advertisement, it is submitted that in the present recruitment process, backlog vacancies of 2015- 2016, 2016-2017, 2018-2019, 2020-2021 and current vacancies of 2021-2022, 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 are being filled up and as no recruitment had taken place in 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category and entitled to five years’ relaxation of age, fulfills the eligibility of age criteria, but he was illegally not allowed to fill up his examination form. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 02.04.1971.
6. On advance copy, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate representing the respondents submits that the provisions for deemed age eligibility contained in the Rules of 2010 read with the terms and conditions of the advertisement is aimed at obviating hardship to those candidates, who were eligible in the year, in which the recruitment had not taken place and this deemed eligibility criteria provided under the Rules of 2010 is not with reference to the year in which the vacancy arose because earlier also these vacancies were opened in the previous recruitment in the year 2021 when an advertisement was issued on 05.01.2021. Therefore, it is contended, the petitioner who had crossed the age limit of 50, with all relaxation given, would not be eligible as on 01.01.2025, as the examination was held in the year 2021 though recruitment was not initiated in subsequent years 2022 and 2023.
7. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this petition, it is necessary to refer to the provisions contained in the applicable Rules of 2010, providing for eligibility for direct recruitment. The relevant part of the Rules is extracted herein-below:
(i) must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of the applications:
Provided that:
(a) the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5 years in case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, More Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections and Women Candidates.
(b) If a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age to appear at the examination in any year in which no su
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 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 age eligibility criteria for Civil Judge Cadre recruitment, affirming that it aligns with statutory provisions and ensures fairness in candidate assessment.
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 ....
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 in the judgment is that the State's decision in fixing the cut-off date for maximum age in accordance with the rules and the date of advertisement cannot be interfere....
Eligibility for recruitment can be determined by the date of re-application under revised advertisements, overriding previous cut-off dates.
Eligibility for recruitment can be determined by the date of re-application under revised advertisements, overriding previous cut-off dates.
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
