Rajasthan High Court: In a petition challenging Clause 20 of an advertisement dated 09-04-2024 which sets age eligibility criteria for Civil Judge recruitment, a division bench comprising of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ and Bhuwan Goyal, J., held that Clause 20 of the advertisement does not violate Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. While dismissing the petition, the Court held that petitioner, being over the age limit even with the relaxation as of 01-01-2023, cannot claim eligibility under the deemed eligibility provision and the petitioner’s ineligibility was clear regardless of the exam timing.
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed a petition challenging Clause 20 of an advertisement dated 09-04-2024 for recruitment to the Civil Judge Cadre in the State Judicial Services. The advertisement set age eligibility criteria — ‘candidates must be between 21 and 40 years old as of 01.01.2025’. Clause 20 included provisions for age relaxation as an additional 5 years for candidates from certain categories (e.g., SC/ST, OBC, EWS, and women) and for persons with Benchmark Disabilities. The petitioner, born on 05-01-1977 and belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), claimed he was unfairly excluded by the age criteria. The main point of issue is whether Clause 20 of the advertisement dated 09-04-2024, determining age eligibility as of 01.01.2023, violates Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, and thus is invalid.
The petitioner claimed the age limit should be determined based on Rule 17, arguing that the 2021 advertisement followed this rule correctly, and the current advertisement’s Clause 20 does not adhere to the spirit of Rule 17. However, the respondents argued that Clause 20 is consistent with Rule 17, emphasising that the relevant year for age eligibility should be the year following the last date fixed for receipt of applications, not the year the exams were missed.
The Court examined Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, particularly the proviso which sets the age limits for direct recruitment to the Civil Judge Cadre and provides for age relaxation under certain conditions, including scenarios where examinations were not held in previous years. The Court noted that the petitioner’s eligibility was assessed based on the relaxed age criteria and stated that the petitioner was over 45 years old as of 01-01-2023, making him ineligible even under the relaxed rules. The Court found that if the petitioner was ineligible even if exams had been held annually, he could not claim eligibility under the proviso aimed at preventing age-based disqualification due to exam non-holding.
The Court noted that Clause 20 adheres to Rule 17, as it correctly sets the eligibility date and conditions. The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the respondents should follow the 2021 advertisement’s approach. The Court held that Clause 20 of the advertisement dated 09-04-2024 is valid and does not violate Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. The Court dismissed the petition and any pending applications.
[Ghanshyam Das Vijay v. Rajasthan High Court, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 1416, order dated 27-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Abhishek Sharma with Mr. GL Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. AK Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent
