Respondent No. 2 Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi issued Advertisement No. 13/2008 publishing in different newspaper dated 29.3.2008 invited applications from the candidates who were law graduates for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division Munsif) fixing the minimum age of 22 years and maximum age of 35 years for the candidates of general category on the cutoff date 31.1.2008.

2. Petitioners are the law graduates and most of them are regularly practicing as advocates in different courts including High Court in the Jharkhand State. the contention of the petitioners is that be• cause of the fixing of maximum age as 35 years for the general category candidates on the cut-off date i.e. 31.1.2008, petitioners who have crossed 35 years of age on 31.1.2008 shall be deprived of from appearing in the examination. Petitioners' further case is that no examination for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division Munsif) has been held after 2001. Because of the inaction on the part of the respondents, examination could not be held after 2001 and• it is only after seven years after creation of the State of Jharkhand, advertisement has been published. Writ petitioners, therefore, prayed that cut-off date fixed as 31.1.2008 for upper age limit as 35 years in respect of applicants of general category be substituted to 31.1.2002 by giving relaxation in age.

3. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether by not advertising and holding any examination between the year 2002 and 2007 the candidates who have crossed their age of 35 years in 2002 are entitled to be given relaxation in the age for appearing in the examination.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate, learned counsels for the Jharkhand High Court and the J.P.S.C. We have also heard learned Advocate General.

5. In All India Judges' Association Case (AIR 2002 SC 1753) it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by the Sr. Counsel Mr. F.S. Nariman one important aspect with regard to dispensation of justice, the huge backlog of undecided cases. One of the reasons which has been indicated was the inadequate strength of judges compared to the population of the country and inordinate delay in making appointments. The Supreme Court taking note of the ,aforesaid facts held:

"25. An independent and efficient judicial system is one of the basic structures of our Constitution. If sufficient numbers of Judges are not appointed, justice would not be available to the people, thereby undermining the basic structure. It is well known that justice delayed is justice denied. Time and again the inadequacy in the number of Judges has adversely been commented upon. Not only have the Law Commission and the Standing Committee of Parliament made observations in' this regard but even the Head of the Judiciary, namely, the Chief Justice of India has had more occasions than ones to make observation in regard thereto under the circumstances, we feel it our constitutional obligation to insure that the backlog of the case is decreased and efforts are made to increase the disposal of cases.' Apart from the steps which may be necessary for increasing the efficiency of the Judicial Officers, we are of the opinion that time has now come for protecting' one of the pillars of the Constitution, namely, the judicial system, by directing increase, in the first instance, in the Judge strength from the existing ratio of 10.5 or 13 per 10 lakhs people to 50 Judges for 10 lakh people. We are conscious of the fact that overnight these vacancies cannot be filled. In order to have additional Judges, not only will be the posts have to be created but infrastructure required in the form of additional Court rooms, buildings, staff, etc., would also have to be made available. We are also aware of the fact that a large number of vacancies as of today from amongst the sanctioned strength remain to be filled. We, therefore, first direct that th