JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Pravin Kumar Singh Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vijay Dixit Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 -High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Shri Indrajeet Shukla, the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2 -State and Shri R.K. Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 - U.P. Public Service Commission.

2. By means of the instant petition the petitioner has sought a declaration that the words “next following the year” mentioned in Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the 2001 Rules’) as ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as to Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Service (Age limit) Rules, 1972 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the 1972 Rules’) and to quash the same. A further prayer made by the petitioner is to consider his candidature for recruitment in Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination 2022.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner's case is that on 10.12.2022 the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Commission’) issued an advertisement for conducting the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination 2022 and the last date of submission of applications was 10.01.2023. The previous advertisement for conducting such an examination had been issued on 11.09.2018.

4. The provision contained in Rule 10 of the 2001 Rules provides that a candidate must have attained the age of more than 35 years on the first day of July, next following the year in which the notification for holding the examination by the Commission is published and where a 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 and the maximum number of chances a candidate is permitted to take will be four.

5. As no examination was held in the years 2019, 2020 and 2021, the petitioner’s eligibility has to be judged with reference to the Recruitment Year 2019 as per the provision contained in Rule 10 of the 2001 Rules. However, Rule 6 of 1972 Rules provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Service Rules, a candidate must have attained the minimum age and must not have attained the maximum age, on the first day of July of the calendar year in which the vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised by the Commission or any other recruiting authority.

6. The petitioner's grievance is that Rule 6 of the 1972 Rules provides the date for consideration of age of a candidate as the first of July of the calendar year in which the vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised, whereas Rule 10 of the 2001 Rules provides the relevant date for determination of age-criteria as the first day of July, next following the year in which the notification for holding the examination is published.

7. Rule 4 of the 1972 Rules provides that “notwithstanding anything to the country contained in the relevant Service Rules, these Rules shall have effect in all cases, except in cases where advertisements for recruitment have been issued before February 24, 1983”.

8. Rule 6 of the 1972 Rules begins with a non-obstante clause and the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 6 of the 1972 Rules providing for computation of age will have an overriding effect over Rule 10 of the 2001 Rules and the petitioner’s age has to be seen as on the first day of July of the calendar year in which the vacancies have been advertised, i.e., on 1st July 2022, as provided in Rule 6 of the 1972 Rules and not on the 1st day of July, next following the year, i.e., 1st July, 2023, as provided in Rule 10 of the 2001 Rules.

9. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, Sri Vijay Dixit, the learned counsel for the opposi