Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 : rr. 8, 12 – Challenge to – Rule 8(1) inter alia postulates that from time to time, but not later than three years from the last recruitment, the High Court shall determine the number of officers to be taken at the recruitment – Under r.12, inter alia minimum age criterion of 35 years and maximum age limit of 45 years is stipulated – Advertisement issued for direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (UPHJS) – Petitioners applied – Debarred on grounds of age – Constitutional validity of rr.8(1) and 12 challenged inter alia on the grounds that by operation of rr.8 and 12, candidates who have crossed the age limit prescribed between the date of the last recruitment and the present recruitment by the lapse of three years in the interregnum get debarred from appearing in the examination – And also that in view of directions of Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan regarding time schedule fixed for filling up vacancies in judicial services, the vacancies in HJS have to be filled up on yearly basis – Held: Constitutional validity of r.8 was upheld in Suraj Bali Singh by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, special leave petition against which was withdrawn – Validity of r.12 was upheld by another Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Agarwal – Certain degree of arbitrariness may appear on the face of any cut-off or age limit which is prescribed, since a candidate on the wrong side of the line may stand excluded as a consequence – That, however, is no reason to hold that the prescribed cut-off is arbitrary – Validity of the Rule cannot be made to depend on cases of individual hardship which inevitably arise in applying a principle of general application – Further, directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan do not create an enforceable right in any candidate for selection or to assert a right to age relaxation in violation of the rule – No merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of rr. 8 and 12 – Petitioners had sufficient opportunities in the past to appear for the HJS examinations when they were within the age limit – Having not succeeded in that, their attempt at moving Supreme Court to seek relaxation of the Rules or to challenge the Rules, is misconceived – Constitution of India – Arts.142, 233(2).
Service Law – Selection – Age limit/Cut-off date – Challenge to – Held: Power to fix cut-off date or age limit is incidental to the regulatory control which an authority exercises over the selection process – For a cut-off to be arbitrary and ultra vires, it must be fixed without any rational basis or be manifestly unreasonable to be violative of Art.14 of the Constitution – Constitution of India – Art.14.
Rule 8(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 inter alia postulates that from time to time, but not later than three years from the last recruitment, the High Court shall determine the number of officers to be taken at the recruitment. Under Rule 12 of the 1975 Rules inter alia a minimum age criterion of 35 years and a maximum age limit of 45 years is stipulated (relaxable by three years for SC and ST candidates). An advertisement was issued for direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (UPHJS). Petitioners applied but, were debarred on grounds of age as being not compliant with the age limit prescribed in Rule 12. Writ petitions filed by the petitioners and C.A No. 1262 of 2019 filed by the appellant therein, challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 8(1) and
12 of the 1975 Rules.
Dismissing the writ petitions and the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1 The directions which have been issued in Malik Mazhar Sultan are being monitored by Supreme Court. The Allahabad High Court has been submitting progressive reports which are monitored by this Court for compliance. The purpose of the directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan was to ensure that vacancies in the district judiciary are not left unfilled over long periods of time, undermining the efficacy of the judicial system. Equally, the Court was cognizant of the fact that each High Court has its recruitment rules. It is in view of that background that the general implementation of the directions which have been issued is being continuously monitored. The directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan are intended to address the issue of vacancies in the district judiciary. Those directions do not override the prevailing rules which govern selections to the HJS in the States and the Union Territories nor do they create an enforceable right in any candidate for selection or to assert a right to age relaxation in violation of the rules. So long as the rules hold the field, a candidate in order to be eligible, must fulfil the requirements of age and other conditions which are prescribed by the Rules. [Paras 17, 19][619-B-C, E, F]
1.2 The validity of both Rules 8 and 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 has been addressed in decisions rendered by the Division Benches of the Allahabad High Court. The constitutional validity of Rule 8 has been upheld in Suraj Bali Singh. A Special Leave Petition against the judgment in Suraj Bali Singh was withdrawn. The validity of Rule 12 has been upheld by another Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Agarwal. [Para 20][619-G-H]
1.3 The power to fix a cut-off date or age limit is incidental to the regulatory control which an authority exercises over the selection process. A certain degree of arbitrariness may appear on the face of any cut-off or age limit which is prescribed, since a candidate on the wrong side of the line may stand excluded as a consequence. That, however, is no reason to hold that the cutoff which is prescribed, is arbitrary. In order to declare that a cutoff is arbitrary and ultra vires, it must be of such a nature as to lead to the conclusion that it has been fixed without any rational basis whatsoever or is manifestly unreasonable so as to lead to a conclusion of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. [Para 21][620-A-B]
1.4 The petitioners and the appellant desire that this Court should roll-back the date with reference to which attainment of the upper age limit of 48 years should be considered. Such an exercise is impermissible. Rule 12 prescribes a minimum age of
35 years and an upper age limit of 45 years (48 years for reserved candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes). Under the Rule, the age limit is prescribed with reference to the first day of January of the year following the year in which the notice inviting applications is published. If the relevant date were to be rolled back, as desired by the petitioners, to an anterior point in time, it is true that some candidates who have crossed the upper age limit under Rule 12 may become eligible. But, interestingly that would affect candidates who on the anterior date may not have attained the minimum age of 35 years but would attain that age under the present Rule. The validity of the Rule cannot be made to depend on cases of individual hardship which inevitably arise in applying a principle of general application. Essentially, the determination of cut-off dates lies in the realm of policy. A court in the exercise of the power of judicial review does not take over that function for itself. Plainly, it is for the rule making authority to discharge that function while framing the Rules. [Para 27][624-G, H; 625-A, B]
1.5 There is no merit in the grievance of discrimination. For the purpose of determining whether a member of the Bar has fulfilled the requirement of seven years’ practice, the cut-off date is the last date for the submission of the applications. For the fulfillment of the age criterion, the cut-off date which is prescribed is the first day of January following the year in which a notice inviting applications is being published. Both the above cut-off dates are with reference to distinct requirements. The seven year practice requirement is referable to the provisions of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. The prescription of an age limit of 45 years, or as the case may be, of 48 years for reserved category candidates, is in pursuance of the discretion vested in the appointing authority to prescribe an age criterion for recruitment to the HJS. [Para 28][625-C-E]
1.6 For the same reason, no case of discrimination or arbitrariness can be made out on the basis of a facial comparison of the Higher Judicial Service Rules, with the Rules governing Nyayik Sewa. Both sets of rules cater to different cadres. A case of discrimination cannot be made out on the basis of a comparison of two sets of rules which govern different cadres. There is no merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rules 8 and 12. [Paras 29, 30][625-F, G]
Sandeep Gupta v. High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad through Its Registrar General Decision of Supreme Court dated 19 July 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 594 of 2016 – distinguished.
Suraj Bali Singh v. Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Decision of Allahabad High Court in Writ A. 20708 of 2012 ; Sanjay Agarwal v. State of UP (2007) 3 UPLBEC 2558 – approved.
Dr Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1997)
6 SCC 614 : [1997] 1 Suppl. SCR 543 ; State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad (1990) 3 SCC 368 : [1990] 2 SCR
468 ; Union of India v. Sudheer Kumar Jaiswal (1994)
4 SCC 212 : Union of India v. Shivbachan Rai (2001)
9 SCC 356 ; Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal (2009) 3 SCC
35 : [2008] 17 SCR 1378 – relied on.
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 600 : [1990] 1 Suppl. SCR 142 ; Gauri Shankar Prasad v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Decision of Allahabad High Court in Writ A. No. 13309/2018 ; Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P Public Service Commission (2008) 17 SCC
703 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.