The prescription of the age of 35 years as eligibility for the appointment of District Judge (Entry Level) by Direct Recruitment was held to be valid and not in violation of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Declaration declaring Column (4) against Clause (iii) in Column (3) in the Annexure to Rule 8 of the Puducherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2008 as amended vide G.O.Ms.16/2016/LD, dated 3.8.2016 as ultra vires the Constitution and hence, null and void to the extent that they prescribe attainment of the age of 35 years as an eligibility to be appointed as District Judge (Entry Level) by Direct Recruitment.)

T. Raja, A.C.J.

1. The Petitioner, a Law Graduate and enrolled as an Advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry on 6.9.2014, has filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Declaration declaring Column (4) against Clause (iii) in Column (3) in the Annexure to Rule 8 of the Puducherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2008 as amended vide G.O.Ms.16/2016/LD, dated 3.8.2016 as ultra vires the Constitution and hence, it is null and void to the extent that they prescribe attainment of the age of 35 years as an eligibility to be appointed as District Judge (Entry Level) by Direct Recruitment.

2. The Second Respondent, vide Notification No.41/2023, dated 8.3.2023, invited Applications for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment for Puducherry Judicial Service. As per the said Notification, a Candidate shall be recruited as a District Judge upon qualifying a preliminary examination, main examination and viva voce. But, as per Item 2 of the Notification titled "Qualification", a person shall be eligible to apply for being recruited as a District Judge, if he/she has attained the age of 35 years, possesses a Degree in Law of a University in India, enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu or in any other State, must be practising as an Advocate on the date of publication of the Notification and must have so practised for a period of not less than seven years as on such date.

3. Though the Petitioner has got eight years and six months of practise as an Advocate and there are vacancies in the post of District Judge in the Union Territory of Puducherry vide Notification No.41/23, dated 8.3.2023 issued by the Second Respondent, she could not apply for the same in view of the prescription of attainment of the age of 35 years as eligibility for the appointment as per the Puducherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2008. Hence, challenging the said provision, the Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the prescription of attainment of the age of 35 years for the appointment of District Judge (Entry Level) by Direct Recruitment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. Referring to Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that when the Constitution of India mandates that a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a District Judge if he has been for not less than seven years an Advocate, the Petitioner having practise for more than seven years as an Advocate, could not apply for the post of District Judge in view of the prescription of the age of 35 years and therefore, the said provision is ultra vires.

6. Learned Counsel further submitted that the prescription of age limit as 35 years for the appointment of District Judge (Entry Level) has no rationale and is violative of the Petitioner's right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it creates inconsistency and that the Puducherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2008 framed by exercising the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with the Notification No.30/1676/Jus., dated 31.8.1979 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Department of Justice), cannot override the provision under Article 1