IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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 Backward Classes, More Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections and Women Candidates. The note appended thereto also explains that the relaxation in age will be admissible in only one category. The second proviso states that the upper age limit shall be relaxed by 5 years in case of the persons with Benchmark Disabilities. It further provides that such age relaxation shall be in addition to the age relaxation already provided to different categories in Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2010'). An explanation appended to that also explains that as the last selection under the Civil Judge Cadre was held in the year 2021 and the age eligibility was determined with reference to 01.01.2022 and thereafter the next recruitment is being undertaken under the new advertisement, the age limit would be determined with reference to the date 01.01.2025, therefore, those who were eligible as on 01.01.2023, shall be deemed to be eligible.

4. The petitioner admittedly was born on 05.01.1977. As on 01.01.2023, he is barred by age as despite relaxation of 5 years granted to him, his age is more than 45 years as on 01.01.2023.

5. The aforesaid prescription in Clause 20 of the advertisement is under challenge in this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued in extenso to submit before this Court that the prescription of age limit with reference to 01.01.2023 is not correct in law and against the statutory prescription, as contained in Rule 17 of the Rules of 2010. Drawing attention of this Court to the provisions contained therein, he would submit that the object of the provision was to allow those candidates, who on account of non-holding of examination every year, became ineligible even though they would have been eligible, had the examination been held regularly. In his submission, the spirit of the said Rule is required to be applied in the present case. He would highlight that earlier when the advertisement was issued on 22.07.2021, similar age prescription clearly provided for eligibility strictly in accordance with the spirit of the provision contained in Rule 17. However, when advertisement was issued on 09.04.2024, impugned in this petition, Clause 20 providing for age eligibility is not in accord with the spirit of Rule 17 of the Rules of 2010.

7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would submit that Clause 20 of the advertisement is strictly in accord with letter and spirit of the provision contained in Rule 17 of the Rules of 2010. Learned Senior Counsel would highlight that the relevant year is not one in which examination was held, but the year in which examination was not held, as provided in proviso (iv) to Rule 17. Even if the advertisement would have been issued in the year 2