LAWS(CHH)-2004-9-10

SARITA DAS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

Decided On September 28, 2004
Sarita Das Appellant
V/S
State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a fresh Law Graduate prays this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Rule 7(b) of Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (2001?) to the extent that it lays down that a candidate should be of 25 years of age to apply for a post in Lower Judicial Service. His grievance is that such a rule cannot be allowed to be there in view of the clear mandate of Supreme Court of India in the case of All India Judges Association and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in : AIR 2002 SC 1752. Further case of the petitioner is that second respondent has now called for the applications from the candidates who are Law Graduates for the post of Civil Judge, Class -II who have completed 25 years of age.

(2.) FIRST respondent has filed a reply resisting the claims of the petitioner contending that in view of what has been stated in para 40 of the judgment in the case of All India Judges Association (Supra), the petitioner who in effect seeks only a clarification has to go before that Court and this Court may not entertain the writ petition. Alternatively, it is contended that fixing such minimum age has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved and therefore, eligibility criteria does not suffer from any legal and constitutional infirmity. According to this respondent the directions given by the Supreme Court in the above referred case has been complied with and now the requirement of having practice not less than three years has been dispensed with. The first respondent has endeavoured to explain that by the time a person completes his law examination he will be 23rd / 24th year of age and after making necessary preparations for the competitive examination he becomes eligible for the test of Civil Judge Class -II on attaining the age of 25. After so explaining, the first respondent has concluded by stating that the rule prescribing the minimum age cannot be said to be discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable, and consequently the writ petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) THE second respondent namely Public Service Commission has filed a reply independently, but however putting forth the same points raised by the first respondent. The only extra point that has been raised by the second respondent is that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for latches since the advertisement for calling of applications by second respondent was made as early as 19.08.2004, but the present petition was filed only on 10.09.1994 and according to him there has been inordinate delay in petitioner approaching this Court.