VINOD KUMAR MANTOO Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of our judgment and order dated 09. 12. 2009 whereby his writ petition was dismissed. In particular, the learned counsel for the review petitioner has drawn our attention to the paragraph 10 of the said decision which is quoted hereunder:-

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, The Residents of kashmir Division in the State of Jammu and Kashmir (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit for Recruitment to Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules") would apply to the Delhi Higher Judicial service also. His argument is that the Rule 6 of the said Rules pertains to persons recruited to Central Civil Services and Posts including those of Indian audit and Accounts Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Rule 3 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970. Rule 3 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, as applicable at present, reads as under:-

(3.) ON reading the above Rule, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the posts in Delhi Higher Judicial Service are to be regarded as Central civil Services Posts, Group A, Gazetted, and, therefore, Rule 6 of the said rules would clearly apply to Delhi Higher Judicial Service also.