By the Court.—The three petitioners responded to an advertisement dated 18 March 2012 issued by the High Court for conducting direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service against 78 vacancies. The advertisement invited applications from Advocates of not less than 7 years standing who must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years as on 1 January 2013. All the three petitioners were more than 45 years of age as on 1 January 2013 and, therefore, were not eligible. This petition was, accordingly, filed for quashing the notification dated 18 March 2012, insofar as it relates to the age bar. Subsequently, an amendment application was filed for declaring Rule 8(i) of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules 1975 (1975 Rules) which deals with number of appointment to be made and Rule 12 which deals Age as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The amendment application was allowed. However, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, petitioner No. 1 (first petitioner), who has appeared in person, submitted that the challenge is restricted to Rule 8(1) only.

An interim order was passed in this petition on 1 June 2012 that if the petitioners are otherwise qualified and had filled up their applications but were not accepted because of being overage, they shall be permitted provisionally to appear in the preliminary examination scheduled to be held on 30 June 2012. The interim order was restricted, however, to only those petitioners who satisfied the age requirement in the year 2011.

2. It has been stated that only the first petitioner was able to qualify and so the petition has been pressed by the first petitioner only.

The date of birth of the first petitioner is 3 August 1967 and he was enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 31 July 1994. The advertisement that was published in the Newspapers on 18 March 2012 for direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service provided that Advocates of not less than 7 years standing as on 1 January 2013 who must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years as on 1 January 2013 could submit their applications online from 1 April 2012 to 30 April 2012. The first petitioner was more than 45 years of age as on 1 January 2013 and, therefore, was not eligible.

3. The first petitioner who has appeared in person submitted that prior to the advertisement that was published on 18 March 2012 for direct recruitment, the last recruitment was made in the year 2009 for filling up vacancies existing in 2009 and anticipated vacancies of the year 2010 but no selection was made for the vacancies existing in the year 2011. The submission is that it was incumbent on the High Court to have issued an advertisement in 2011 in view of the directions given by the Supreme Court on 4 January 2007 in Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others, JT 2007(3) SC 352 and since no advertisement had been issued in 2011, the first petitioner should be considered eligible against the 2011 vacancies since he was eligible on 1 January 2012. Rule 8(1) of the 1975 Rules is, therefore, sought to be challenged as being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

4. Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the High Court, however, submitted that the petitioner was not eligible to appear at the examination conducted in 2012 since he did not satisfy the age requirement provided for under Rule 12. Learned counsel has placed before the Court the order dated 31 March 2011 passed by the State Government, the Application filed by the High Court in the Supreme Court and the order passed by the Supreme Court to explain why the High Court could not conduct any examination in the year 2011. Learned Counsel also submitted that Rule 8 (1) cannot be said to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

We have considered the submissions advanced by the first petitioner and the learned c