Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 14968
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
INDRESH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 9065/2026 | CM APPL. 42436/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arun Bharadwaj, Anil Kumar Gupta, Nancy Gupta, Jai Bansal, Rakshita Saxena, Namrata Kathuria
For the Respondents: Asmita Singh, Avnish Ahlawat, Uday Singh Ahlawat, Tania Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam, Mohnish Sehrawat
Age relaxation in competitive examinations is not warranted when the recruitment authority has effectively covered the vacancy period through prior notifications or when delays are necessitated by mandatory statutory rule amendments.
Headnote:The petitioners, practicing advocates, sought a Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus under the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, requesting a one-time age relaxation for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) Examination, 2026. They contended that the failure to conduct the examination in 2025, despite the mandate for annual recruitment under Rule 7, caused them to exceed the maximum age limit of 45 years, thereby violating their legitimate expectations and rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The primary issue was whether the absence of a 2025 examination constituted an institutional delay justifying age protection. The court observed that the notification dated 27.12.2024 had already included all anticipated vacancies up to 01.12.2025, effectively covering the 2025 period. Furthermore, the court noted that the timing of the 2026 notification was influenced by necessary rule amendments following the Supreme Court's directions in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Others, meaning no discriminatory gap was created. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, along with the pending application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek age relaxation for dhjs exam 2026 due to perceived gap in 2025. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding institutional delay and the protection of legitimate expectations of candidates. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. respondents justify the recruitment timeline via previous notifications and mandatory rule amendments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court finds no illegality as vacancies were covered and delays were due to statutory requirements. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. dismissal of the petition for lack of compelling circumstances for age relaxation. (Para 17 , 18) |
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
ORAL
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the Respondents to grant a one-time age relaxation/exemption to the Petitioner for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) Examination, 2026, by deeming the Petitioner within the eligible age bracket;
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to accept the online/offline application form of the Petitioner for the DHJS Examination, 2026, and permit the Petitioner to participate in all stages of the selection process; and
(iii) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest justice.”
2. The petitioners are practicing advocates/Addl. Public Prosecutors working in the prosecution department of the Government of NCT of Delhi, and have a standing of 22 years. On 01.07.2026, the respondent No.1 published a notification for conducting the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination-2026 (‘DHJS Exam’). As per the age eligibility prescribed for the examination, the age of candidate must not be less than 35 years and more than 45 years on 15.07.2026 i.e., the last date for applying for the examination. It is stated that the respondent no.1 has been regularly holding DHJS Exams every year from 2019, except in 2025 which was not held, against the legitimate expectations of eligible candidates preparing for the same.
3. The petitioner no.1 made a representation to the competent authority i.e., the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court and the Principal Secretary, Law & Justice, GNCTD through e-mail and speed post on 02.07.02026, seeking one time age relaxation/ age protection for participating in the DHJS Exam-2026 on account of non-holding of DHJS Exam-2025. The petitioner no.2 also made representation to the respondents through e-mail. However, the competent authority has not communicated any decision on the representation of petitioners till date.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that Rule 7 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 explicitly contemplate regularly and timely determination of vacancies and the conducting of competitive examinations on an annual basis. Rule 7 (2) thereof dictates the rotation of vacancies by way of promotion, limited competitive examination (LCE) and direct recruitment. Thus it is the institutional obligation driven by the continuous flow of statutory roster, which has been elevated to strict legal mandate.
5. It is stated that the petitioners have been diligently preparing for the DHJS Exam-2025 and met all the requisite statutory parameters, including being well within the maximum prescribed age limit throughout the calendar year 2025. The petitioner No.l was a selected candidate in the year 2023 and his name was kept in the waiting of the selected candidates due to non-availability of the vacancies for general category candidates.
6. It is submitted that for reasons purely administrative and internal to the respondents, no examination was notified or conducted in the calendar year 2025, creating an unscheduled institutional hiatus. Due to the complete omission/non-publishing of notification for DHJS Exam in the year 2025, the petitioners crossed the maximum age cut-off and have been r
