Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 14983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
AJAY KUMAR SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 9162/2026 | CM APPL. 42956/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anupam Srivastava, Raj Kumar Ruhil, Pratap Singh, Manish K. Vaid, Hammad Ali, Sukhmandeep Singh
For the Respondents: Asmita Singh, Avnish Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam, Mohnish Sehrawat
The non-conduct of a recruitment examination in a specific year does not entitle a candidate to age relaxation if previous notifications already covered the anticipated vacancies for that period and the candidate has since become over-age.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the eligibility condition in the Advertisement dated 01.07.2026 and Rule 9(5) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, as amended on 19.02.2026, which stipulated an upper age limit of 45 years. The petitioner contended that since no examination was conducted in the recruitment year 2025, candidates who were eligible then should be granted relaxation. The court found that the notification dated 27.12.2024 had already included all anticipated vacancies up to 01.12.2025, and the petitioner had previously applied and been unsuccessful. The primary issue was whether the failure to conduct a separate examination in 2025 and the subsequent application of the age limit in the 2026 notification were arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court reasoned that the objective of filling vacancies was met by the 2024 notification and that the timing of the 2026 notification was necessitated by rule amendments following the Supreme Court's directions in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Others. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, along with the pending application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to age eligibility and notification for dhjs exam 2026. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. argument for age relaxation due to the absence of a 2025 recruitment cycle. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. defense based on previous vacancy notifications and mandatory rule amendments. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's finding that no prejudice was caused as vacancies were previously accounted for. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit in the plea for relaxation. (Para 16 , 17) |
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
ORAL
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“(a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing/reading down the eligibility condition prescribed in the Advertisement/Notification dated 01.07.2026 issued by the Respondent No. 1 for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2026, to the extent it requires that a candidate must not have attained the age of 45 years on the last date of receipt of applications, i.e., 15.07.2026, insofar as it excludes candidates who were age-eligible for the DHJS Examination in the recruitment year 2025;
(b) declare Rule 9(5) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, as amended vide notification dated 19.02.2026 by the Respondent No.2, to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to the extent it operates to exclude, without any transitional provision, candidates who were within the age cut-off of 45 years during the recruitment year 2025 in which no DHJS Examination was held;
(c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner, as an one-time measure, to fill the online application form for and to participate in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2026, by granting appropriate relaxation in the upper age limit;
(d) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No. 1 to bifurcate and disclose separately, the vacancies which arose after 01.12.2025 (being the vacancies of the recruitment year 2025) and the vacancies of the year 2026, out of the 27 vacancies advertised vide the impugned Advertisement dated 01.07.2026, and to fill the vacancies of the recruitment year 2025 in accordance with Rule 9(3) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 , as amended on 05.03.2024;”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that an Advertisement/Notification dated 01.07.2026 was issued by the High Court of Delhi inviting eligible candidates for filling up 27 vacancies (24 existing and 03 anticipated) in the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS) by a way of direct recruitment through Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination, 2026 (‘DHJS Exam’).
3. The last date of filing the online application is 15.07.2026 and the preliminary examination is scheduled for 26.07.2026. As per the notification a candidate must have attained 35 years of age and must not have attained 45 years of age on the date of receipt of the application i.e., 15.07.2026.
4. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the amendment of Rule 9(5) of Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1970 (‘the Rules’) as amended on 19.02.2026 computes the upper age limit of 45 years to the last date of application without any protection for candidates who lost opportunity to compete due to non-conduct of DHJS Exam in the year 2025. The respondent no.1 neither notified any vacancies for the year 2025 nor conducted any examination in the year 2025.
5. He states that the Rule 9(3) of the Rules as amended on 05.03.2024 stipulate the upper age of a candidate, not to have attained the age of 45 years on 1st January of the year in which the application for appointment are invited. The petitioner whose date of birth is 03.10.1980 would be eligible to apply had the DHJS Exam-2025 been conducted.
6. According to him, as per the advertisement fo
