A similar concession has been extended to candidates of the Delhi High Judicial Service Examination..——–.THE Supreme Court on Monday allowed those candidates who were eligible to sit for the Delhi Judicial Service Examinations [DJSE] and the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination [DHJSE] in 2020 and 2021 by virtue of the upper age limit, that is, 32 and 45 respectively, to appear in the exams later this month. It, however, rejected the challenge to the minimum age of 35 years for appearing in the DHJSE..A special bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli passed the order to this effect after senior advocate A.D.N. Rao, on behalf of the Delhi High Court, suggested to the bench that the High Court would be willing to grant the concession only in terms of upper age limit. Rao informed the Court that the High Court could not hold the examinations in 2020 due to some procedural issues, while in 2021, the examinations could not be held due to the COVID-19 pandemic..Consequently, the bench also modified the last date of receipt of applications and the examination. It directed that the last date of receipt of the applications for DJSE be extended to April 3 and the exam be fixed for April 24. While for DHJSE, the bench directed that the last date for the receipt of applications be extended to March 26, while the exam be scheduled for April 3..The bench was ruling on two appeals filed by the High Court of Delhi against its own division bench postponing DJSE and DHJE, which were scheduled to be held on March 27 and 20 respectively..On March 4, a division bench of the Delhi High Court, while hearing a batch of petitions challenging a notification issued by the High Court on February 8 this year amending the Rules of Delhi Higher Judicial Service, 1970 whereby Rule 9(3) has been introduced and a minimum age limit of 35 years has been prescribed, observed that since the minimum age limit has been re-introduced after a hiatus of two years, the matter required consideration and thus it directed to extend the date for filling up the online application form beyond the next date of hearing, that is, April 7..Subsequently, on March 8, another division bench, while hearing a petition pertaining to the DJSE, directed to extend the date for filling up the online application form beyond the next date of hearing. The Delhi High Court administration was aggrieved by these two orders and approached the Supreme Court..Senior Advocate A.S. Chandhiok, who was appearing for one of the petitioners aspiring to appear in the Higher Judiciary Examination, contended that for the last two years, the high court did not prescribe the minimum age limit for appearing in the examination. He added that nowhere in the Constitution, minimum age has been prescribed even for a high court judge..The Supreme Court rejected the argument of Chandhiok. It said the Constitution has prescribed a requirement to effect that a person shall be eligible for appointment as district judge only if they have been an advocate for seven years, but it doesn't preclude the exercise of rule-making power of the High Court to regulate conditions of service. It added that the Constitution being silent on the prescription of minimum age, the High Court under its rule-making authority is entitled to do that. It added that such a decision is within the realm of policy. The Court also took note of its previous ruling upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 which provided a cut-off date for the fulfillment of the age criterion (35-45 years), as the first day of January next following the year in which the notice inviting applications. It also took note of the fact that the minimum age requirement for higher judiciary examination is based on the recommendation of the Justice J. Shetty Commission..The bench also heard senior advocates Siddharth Luthra, Anita Shenoy and Dama Seshadri Naidu for the various petitioners and intervenors..Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for one Devina Sharma, the DJSE aspirant who had approached the High Court seeking upper-age limit relaxation, contended that the High Court did not hold exams in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID-19, and that she should be permitted to appear in the examination..Click here to read order.
A similar concession has been extended to candidates of the Delhi High Judicial Service Examination..——–.THE Supreme Court on Monday allowed those candidates who were eligible to sit for the Delhi Judicial Service Examinations [DJSE] and the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination [DHJSE] in 2020 and 2021 by virtue of the upper age limit, that is, 32 and 45 respectively, to appear in the exams later this month. It, however, rejected the challenge to the minimum age of 35 years for appearing in the DHJSE..A special bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli passed the order to this effect after senior advocate A.D.N. Rao, on behalf of the Delhi High Court, suggested to the bench that the High Court would be willing to grant the concession only in terms of upper age limit. Rao informed the Court that the High Court could not hold the examinations in 2020 due to some procedural issues, while in 2021, the examinations could not be held due to the COVID-19 pandemic..Consequently, the bench also modified the last date of receipt of applications and the examination. It directed that the last date of receipt of the applications for DJSE be extended to April 3 and the exam be fixed for April 24. While for DHJSE, the bench directed that the last date for the receipt of applications be extended to March 26, while the exam be scheduled for April 3..The bench was ruling on two appeals filed by the High Court of Delhi against its own division bench postponing DJSE and DHJE, which were scheduled to be held on March 27 and 20 respectively..On March 4, a division bench of the Delhi High Court, while hearing a batch of petitions challenging a notification issued by the High Court on February 8 this year amending the Rules of Delhi Higher Judicial Service, 1970 whereby Rule 9(3) has been introduced and a minimum age limit of 35 years has been prescribed, observed that since the minimum age limit has been re-introduced after a hiatus of two years, the matter required consideration and thus it directed to extend the date for filling up the online application form beyond the next date of hearing, that is, April 7..Subsequently, on March 8, another division bench, while hearing a petition pertaining to the DJSE, directed to extend the date for filling up the online application form beyond the next date of hearing. The Delhi High Court administration was aggrieved by these two orders and approached the Supreme Court..Senior Advocate A.S. Chandhiok, who was appearing for one of the petitioners aspiring to appear in the Higher Judiciary Examination, contended that for the last two years, the high court did not prescribe the minimum age limit for appearing in the examination. He added that nowhere in the Constitution, minimum age has been prescribed even for a high court judge..The Supreme Court rejected the argument of Chandhiok. It said the Constitution has prescribed a requirement to effect that a person shall be eligible for appointment as district judge only if they have been an advocate for seven years, but it doesn't preclude the exercise of rule-making power of the High Court to regulate conditions of service. It added that the Constitution being silent on the prescription of minimum age, the High Court under its rule-making authority is entitled to do that. It added that such a decision is within the realm of policy. The Court also took note of its previous ruling upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 which provided a cut-off date for the fulfillment of the age criterion (35-45 years), as the first day of January next following the year in which the notice inviting applications. It also took note of the fact that the minimum age requirement for higher judiciary examination is based on the recommendation of the Justice J. Shetty Commission..The bench also heard senior advocates Siddharth Luthra, Anita Shenoy and Dama Seshadri Naidu for the various petitioners and intervenors..Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for one Devina Sharma, the DJSE aspirant who had approached the High Court seeking upper-age limit relaxation, contended that the High Court did not hold exams in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID-19, and that she should be permitted to appear in the examination..Click here to read order.
