Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Roop Chand – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, through Registrar General – Respondent
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
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.
Right of the petitioners to claim age relaxation as they were within age and had applied for recruitment pursuant to the earlier advertisement which got cancelled.
The prescription of the age of 35 years as eligibility for the appointment of District Judge (Entry Level) by Direct Recruitment was held to be valid and not in violation of the Constitution of India....
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
