Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, BHUWAN GOYAL
Ghanshyam Das Vijay – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan High Court – Respondent
ORDER :
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.
2. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks to assail the correctness and validity of Clause 20 of the advertisement dated 09.04.2024, by which the respondents have initiated the process of recruitment to the post of Civil Judge Cadre in the State Judicial Services.
3. Quintessential facts necessary for determination of controversy involved in this petition are that the respondents have issued an advertisement on 09.04.2024 for filling up the vacancies in the Civil Judge Cadre in the State Judicial Services. Clause 20 of the aforesaid advertisement provides for the age eligibility. It provides that a candidate for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge Cadre must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 40 years on the first day of January following (01.01.2025) the last date fixed for receipt of applications. There are two provisos attached to the aforesaid prescription with regard to age eligibility. The first one provides for relaxation of upper age limit by 5 years, in case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, Other Backwar
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.
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 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 upheld the constitutionality of age limits in judicial recruitment rules, affirming that such regulations fall within the policy-making authority of the rule makers.
A candidate's eligibility cannot be negated by a subsequent amendment to the cut-off date if they were eligible under the original notification, as per the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Anim....
Eligibility for recruitment can be determined by the date of re-application under revised advertisements, overriding previous cut-off dates.
The absence of specific provision for age relaxation for specially abled candidates in the Rules, 2018, at the time of advertisement and application, led to the dismissal of the petitioner's claim fo....
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
