Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before this Court that he has a very valid case in support of the contention of the petitioner on the issue particularly on the basis of Rule 4(m) read with third proviso to Rule 10 of the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001. He also contended that his case is backed by the judgment reported in JT 2006 (4) SC 531, Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others. He further contended that when the State being recruitment authority sent requisition to the High Court, process of recruitment seems to be started and the candidates, who became eligible then but not called for interview due to delay in selection, can not be said to be debarred from participating in interview because of overage. There is no fault on the part of the candidates. In JT 2006 (4) SC 531 (supra) the Supreme Court categorically held “The rules postulate the timely determination of vacancies and timely appointments. The non-filling of vacancies for long not only results in the avoidable litigation but also results in creeping of frustration in the candidates. Further, non-filling of vacancies for long time, deprives the people of the services of the Judicial Officers. This is one of the reasons of huge pendency of cases in the Courts.” Supreme Court further held as under :

“(26) Now, let us examine the second proviso to Rule 10. It stipulates that where candidate was eligible in age to appear at the examination in any year of recruitment in which no such examination was held, he shall be deemed to be eligible in age to appear in the next following examination. The benefit of proviso comes into operation if examination in any year of recruitment is not held so as to give relief to those candidates who would have been otherwise eligible in age but for not holding of the examination. There are two different categories dealt with under Rule 10 for the purpose of eligibility from age viewpoint. One under main part of Rule 10 and two under second proviso of Rule 10. Under first part, the determining factor for age is date of advertisement Under second part, determining factor for age is as on year of recruitment. The age requirement under main part of Rule 10 is on the requisite date following the year in which Notification for holding examination inviting application is published. The expression ‘Notification’ in the context means issued of advertisement inviting applications. Under the first part, therefore, the relevant date for determining age would be 1st July, 2004, the advertisement having been issued on 22-28th November, 2003. The proviso, however, makes eligible, from the viewpoint of age, even those candidates to appear in the next following examination, who were eligible in age if examination was held in year of recruitment. That is the reason that under second proviso for determining age, the relevant fact is not the publication of notification as in main part of Rule 10, but is age of a candidate to appear at the examination in any year of recruitment in which examination was not held. The candidate shall be deemed to be eligible in age to appear in the next following examination. The year of recruitment has been held to be 1st July, 2002 to 30th June, 2003. The examination in year of recruitment was not held. The examination was held in March, 2004. In such a situation, candidates would be entitled to benefit of age requirement in terms of second proviso.

(27) According to Rule 4(m), the year of recruitment means a period of twelve months commencing from the first day of July of the calendar year in which the process of recruitment is initiated by the Appointing Authority. The Appointing Authority within the meaning of the Rules means the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, in other words, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. As already noted above, the process of recruitment was initiated on 23rd November, 2002. The determination of vacancies and