AMU LAWYERS FORUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Forum through its President, espousing the cause of certain section of Advocates, who claims to be aspirants and otherwise eligible for Delhi Judicial Service (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service') has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following directions:

(2.) It is claimed that almost all State Public Service Commissions have enhanced the upper age limit from 32 to 34 years to appear in the Judicial Service Examination of the respective States but correspondingly no increase has been made by the respondent in the upper age limit for the Delhi Judicial Service Examinations, which are scheduled to be held from 16th to 18th August, 1996, pursuant to advertisement dated 16.5.1996 which appeared in the Employment News 25-31 May 1996. This acof not enhancing the upper age limit is arbitrary and discriminatory, more particularly when the other States have enhanced the upper age limit, in order to bring uniformity amongst Judicial Services Examinations conducted by different State Public Service Commissions, keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 2771, emphasising minimum three years legal practice a must for entry into Judicial Service. It is also alleged that reservation to Other Backward Classes is available in most of the services but no such reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is made available in Delhi Judicial Service, which has ultimately resulted in manifest injustice and violation of their legal rights. It also amounts to flouting the mandate of the Government in making reservation to the extent of 27% for OBCs. The challenge is also to the Fixation of 1st of January, following the date of Examination, as the cut off date, for determining the qualifying age.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the submission, we find no force therein. The petition is liable to be dismissed.