Summary
The Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service recruitment and age rules survived constitutional challenge. Judicial directions for timely recruitment did not override existing rules or create a right to age relaxation. Hardship from a cutoff did not itself establish arbitrariness, and different cutoffs for age and Bar experience addressed distinct requirements. Interim permission to sit examinations did not justify Article 142 relief contrary to eligibility rules.
Issues
- Whether Rules 8(1) and 12 were arbitrary or discriminatory in prescribing recruitment intervals and an age cutoff.
- Whether recruitment directions or interim examination permission entitled overage candidates to relaxation.
Provisions considered
- Rules 8(1) and 12, Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975The recruitment framework and age determination on 1 January following the advertisement year were upheld; candidates had to satisfy the prescribed age limits and applicable category relaxation. (¶¶ 3, 15–21, 27–30)
Held
- Malik Mazhar Sultan’s directions addressed unfilled vacancies while recognising State recruitment rules. They did not override those rules or confer an enforceable right to selection or age relaxation in violation of them. (¶ 17–19)
- Fixing age limits and cutoffs lay within rule-making discretion. Exclusion or individual hardship did not establish invalidity without lack of rational basis or manifest unreasonableness. Moving the date backward could also exclude candidates reaching the minimum age under the existing rule. (¶ 21–27)
- Different dates for seven years’ Bar practice and age were tied to distinct requirements and were not discriminatory. Nor could discrimination be established by comparing rules governing different cadres. (¶ 28–30)
- Interim permission to appear created no entitlement to a result or appointment contrary to the age rules. Article 142 relief would unfairly distinguish similarly situated nonlitigants and breach the governing criteria; the earlier exceptional nonprecedential order was distinguishable. (¶ 31–34)
Result
Writ petitions and civil appeal dismissed; constitutional validity of Rules 8 and 12 upheld and age-relaxation relief refused. No costs.