JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for age relaxation to the writ petitioners in the recruitment of District Judge/Jharkhand Higher Judicial Service, as published by the Jharkhand High Court vide Advertisement No.01/2022/Apptt., in which, the age limit prescribed to fill up the form was 45 years and the cut-off date is to be calculated on 31st January, 2021 on the ground that no examination was held/conducted by the High Court in the year, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 due to institutional reason and due to the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic.

2. The grievance of the writ petitioners, as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that they are being deprived from chance of consideration for their candidature for appointment as District Judge, which has been sought to be filled up by way of an advertisement published on 24.03.2022 to fill up 22 vacancies from eligible Advocates from the Bar.

The writ petitioners have claimed that now they have been deprived from participating in the process of selection since they have already crossed the maximum age of 45 years as on 31.01.2021. The writ petitioners, therefore, are before this Court for relaxation of age on the ground that the examination for the said post could not have been conducted for the year, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 due to institutional reason and due to the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic, therefore, a direction has been sought for relaxation of their age so that they have been allowed to participate in the process of selection for consideration of their candidature.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of High Court of Delhi Vrs. Devina Sharma, in Civil Appeal No.2016 of 2022.

4. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. has appeared for the respondent no.2.-State of Jharkhand.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as also the documents appended thereto.

6. It appears from the aforesaid advertisement that the advertisement has been published to fill up 22 vacancies for the post of District Judge from the Bar.

The eligibility condition as contained in the said advertisement so far as the age bar is concerned is that the candidate has to be above 35 years but below 45 years as on 31st January, 2021. The upper age limit is relaxable by three years in case of S.C./S.T. candidates.

The grievance raised by the writ petitioners that they have crossed the maximum age of 45 years as on 31st January, 2021. The further grievance is that they have been deprived from participating in the process of selection because when they were eligible, i.e., at the age of below 45 years, since no examination could held for the year, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, to buttress his argument, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of High Court of Delhi Vrs. Devina Sharma (supra).

8. This Court is to consider as to whether non-conducting of an examination for a year could be a ground for issuing a direction for relaxation of age of candidate?

9. The position of law is well settled as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 614, wherein it has been laid down that non-conducting of examination cannot be a ground for seeking relaxation in age by one or the other candidates, for ready reference, paragraphs-10, 11 and 12 of the aforesaid judgment are required to be referred herein, which read as under:-

“10. It is next contended on behalf of the appellants/petitioners that under all the service rules concerned there is a provision for age relaxation. In Rule 11(A) of the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, there is a provision for age relaxation by 5 years by the Government in consultation with the Commission. There is also Rule 35 in the said R