SHANTI RANJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) in the exam of 2017, the Petitioner who belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC) seeks quashing of the notice dated 10th July, 2019 issued by the High Court for conducting the DHJS Examination 2017. The further relief sought is for a direction to the High Court to consider the Petitioner's candidature for interview pursuant to Rule 22 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (DHJS Rules) and the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 8th December, 1971 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India.

(2.) The short ground on which the above reliefs are sought is that the High Court ought to have provided for age relaxation for SC candidates. Admittedly, at the time that the Petitioner took the exam, he was above the maximum age of eligibility in terms of Rule 9 (3) of the DHJS Rules, which requires a direct recruit candidate to have attained 35 years but not have exceeded 45 years, on the first day of January of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited.

(3.) The case of the Petitioner is that the rejection of his candidature for the reason that he was above the maximum age of eligibility is contrary to Rule 22 of the DHJS Rules, which states that reservation of posts for SC and Scheduled Tribe (ST) shall be in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time. It is contended that the High Court ought to have followed the aforementioned OM dated 8th December, 1971 issued by the DoPT, in terms of which the maximum age limit prescribed for appointment to a service/post should be increased by 5 years in the case of candidates belonging to SC and ST.