Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohit Kumar & Anr vs Rajasthan High Court,Jodhpur & Ors on 1 May, 2017
Bench: Govind Mathur, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4342 / 2017
1. Mohit Kumar S/o Late Shri Jagmohan Sharma,, Aged About 46
Years, R/o A-1/1, Sanjay Enclave, Manas Junj Chowk, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi- 110059
2. Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Shiv Dutt,, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
House No.1560, Duliya Colony, Alipur, Delhi- 110036
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court,, Jodhpur Through the Registrar, General
2. Registrar (Examination),, High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan
3. Chairman, Selection Committee of Recruitment of Higher
Judicial Services, 2017,, High Court, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 01/05/2017 By notification dated 10.2.2017, the Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, notified 27 vacant posts in District Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Service, which are required to be filled in through competitive examination for Direct Recruitment in the District Judge Cadre, 2017, as per (2 of 4) [CW-4342/2017] provisions of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2010'). Clause 3 of the notification dated 10.2.2017 provides that a candidate for direct recruitment to the service must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the 1 st day of January 2018. Clause 3 aforesaid, in its entirety, reads as follows:-
"3. AGE: A candidate for direct recruitment to the service must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the 1 st day of January 2018.
(a) Provided that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5 (five) years in case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Women Candidates.
(b) If a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his age to appear at the examination in any year in which no such examination was held, he shall be deemed to be entitled in respect of his age to appear at the next following examination.
Explanation: The last Notification for direct recruitment in District Judge Cadre was issued in 2015, wherein age was calculated on the basis of the date 01.01.2016. For this recruitment age is being calculated on the basis of the date 01.01.2018, therefore, the candidates who would have been eligible in respect of his age as on 01.01.2017 are entitled to apply, if otherwise eligible, for the post."
(3 of 4) [CW-4342/2017] The case of the petitioners is that they crossed the maximum age limit prior to 1.1.2017 and they have not been treated within the age limit prescribed, but the same is illegal for the reason that in the year 2016 no recruitment for District Judge Cadre took place. According to the petitioners their candidature should have been examined by the respondents by taking into consideration 1.1.2018 and not by 1.1.2017. According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners the respondents for all purposes are determining the maximum age limit as on 1 st day of January 2018, but for the persons like petitioners the same has been fixed as January 1st, 2017 and i.e. discriminatory.
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The petitioners, as a matter of fact, became overage even prior to 1.1.2017 and, therefore, they were not entitled to face the process of selection, if that would have been conducted even in the year 2016. As per Rule 33 of the Rules of 2010 a person who has attained the age of 35 years and has not attained the age of 45 years on the 1 st day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of the applications, shall be eligible to face the competitive examination. The respondents, if would have initiated the process of recruitment against the vacancies of the year 2016, then too the maximum age limit was required to be determined as on 1st day of January 2017. As already stated, even on that day the petitioners crossed the maximum age limit and, therefore, their claim to have relaxation on the count of non (4 of 4) [CW-4342/2017] conducting the recruitment process for the year 2016 is absolutely ill-founded.
The writ petition, on its face, is bereft of merit, hence, dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. MathuriaKK/PS