IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D. N. PATEL, AMITAV K. GUPTA, JJ.
Krishna Kumar Mishra, S/o Dhaneshwar Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No.6302, 6204, 6699 of 2017
Decided On : 21-02-2018
The Hon'ble Court declined to alter the cut-off date for the post of District Judges from the Bar, which was prescribed as 31.01.2016. The Court observed that the cut-off date is a policy decision of the respondents and unless it is whimsical, capricious, arbitrary or wide off the mark, as to make it wholly unreasonable, it cannot be altered by the Court. The Court further observed that the petitioners' reliance on certain judgments was misplaced as those judgments were either per incuriam or indirectly overruled.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were general category candidates, sought to change the cut-off date for the post of District Judges from the Bar from 31.01.2016 to 31.01.2011 or 31.01.2013. The petitioners argued that the cut-off date should be changed as the examination for the post was conducted after a gap of 7 years and that the earlier cut-off date would result in age-related ineligibility for many candidates.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the cut-off date of 31.01.2016 was not arbitrary, whimsical, capricious or wide off the mark. The Court also found that the petitioners' reliance on certain judgments was misplaced as those judgments were either per incuriam or indirectly overruled.
Issues: 1. Whether the cut-off date for the post of District Judges from the Bar should be changed from 31.01.2016 to 31.01.2011 or 31.01.2013? 2. Whether the petitioners' reliance on certain judgments was misplaced?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The cut-off date is a policy decision of the respondents and unless it is whimsical, capricious, arbitrary or wide off the mark, as to make it wholly unreasonable, it cannot be altered by the Court. 2. A judgment is per incuriam if it is delivered in ignorance of a binding precedent or a constitutional provision.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions.
D.N. Patel, J.
1. These writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners for change of cut-off date which is prescribed in the public advertisement for the post of District Judges from the Bar. Advertisement No.1 of 2017 was issued on 13.10.2017 in the public Newspaper and the cut-off date for the age of the candidates is 31.01.2016 as per Rule 9 of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2001'). The minimum age was 35 years and the maximum age limit was 45 years for the general category candidates as on 31.01.2016. These petitioners are claiming change of cut-off date instead of 31.01.2016, it should be 31.01.2011 (as prayed in W.P.(S) No.6204 of 2017 as well as in W.P.(S) No.6699 of 2017), whereas in another writ petition, there is prayer that cut-off date should be instead of 31.01.2016, it should have been 31.01.2013 (as prayed in W.P.(S) No.6302 of 2017). Thus, for change of cut-off date and for accepting “accommodative approach”, these writ petitions have been preferred.
2. Factual Matrix
Public advertisement No.1 of 2017 has been given in the Newspaper inviting applications for the post of District Judges from the Bar. The total vacancy advertised is 17.
Rule 9 of the Rules, 2001 reads as under :-
“9. Eligibility : A candidate shall be eligible to be appointed as an Additional District Judge under these Rules, if :
(a) he is above the age of 35 years and below the age of 45 years as on the last day of January preceding the year in which the examination is held; provided that in the case of candidate belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, there may be a relaxation of upper age limit by three years;
(b) is a graduate in law from a University recognized for the purpose of enrollment as an Advocate under the Advocates' Act, 1961;
(c) has an experience of more than seven years at the Bar as a practicing Advocate after having been duly enrolled as such under the Advocates, Act, 1961;
(d) Possesses good health, is of sound moral character and is not involved in, or related any criminal case of any type involving moral turpitude.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions are general category candidates, and hence, as on cutoff date, i.e., 31.01.2016 the minimum age should be 35 years and maximum should be 45 years only. Thus, general category candidates can apply for the post in question.
Preliminary examination for the aforesaid post is going to be conducted after 4 days, i.e., on 25.02.2018. As the advertisement was given in the year 2017, the cut-off date of all the candidates is 31.01.2016 which is eventually applicable to all the general category candidates and other candidates for calculation of their age limit.
The last date for preferring the application was 15.11.2017, whereas writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6699 of 2017 has been filed on 17.11.2017 with a prayer of change of cut-off date so as to accommodate the petitioners.
In W.P.(S) No.6302 of 2017, the date of birth of the petitioner – Krishna Kumar Mishra, is 01.12.1970, and hence, his age as on cut-off date 31.01.2016, is 45 years and 02 months. Thus, this petitioner is seeking cut-off date to be shifted for two months which can be 30.11.2015. Nonetheless, in this writ petition prayer for change of cut-off date is demanded by this petitioner is 31.01.2013. We do not see any reason of such prayer which includes two more years, though not required for this petitioner.
There are four petitioners in W.P.(S) No.6204 of 2017 and the date of birth of the petitioners are as follows :-
| Petitioner Numbers | Date of Birth | Age as on 31.01.2016 |
| Petitioner No.1 | 11/02/69 | 46 years & 11 months |
| Petitioner No.2 | 27/05/70 | 45 years & 08 months |
| Petitioner No.3 |
| |
A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Sarat Chandra
Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Subbarayudu.
C. N. Rudramurthy Vs. K. Barkathulla Khan
Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Himangni Enterprises Vs. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others Vs. Sajal Kumar Roy & Ors.
Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Arvind Singh Chauhan & Ors.
Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court
R. N. Agarwal Vs. R. C. Bansal
Ramrao Vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn.
Sandeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra
Satish Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana
Shankar K. Mandal & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others.
State of Bihar Vs. Ramjee Prasad
State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty
State of U.P. Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.
Subhash Chandra Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
Union of India & Another Vs. M/s Parameswaran Match Works & Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.