C. UMA BHUVANESHWARI Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions questions the validity of the Notification dtd. 9/9/2019 inviting applications for the examinations to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Civil Judge in the Judicial Services of the State.

(2.) The petitioners, in this batch of writ petitions, are all claiming themselves to be fresh Law graduates, who have acquired their Degree of Law, but are being prevented from appearing in the examinations as the degree/provisional certificates awarded to them are not within the period of three years prior to the date of Notification. Their contention is that they have not yet completed the maximum age bar of 27 years, yet they are being non-suited on the basis of an artificial classification incorporated in the Notification, which in turn is based on Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, to be more particular, Rule 5(9) there of, which is gainfully extracted herein under: "5.METHOD OF APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATION AND AGE: THE SCHEDULE <IMG>JUDGEMENT_600_LAWS(MAD)12_2019_1.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_600_LAWS(MAD)12_2019_2.jpg</IMG>

(3.) Arguments have been spearheaded in this batch of writ petitions by Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel, who contends that this issue was neither raised, nor decided in any other previous contests either before this Court or for that matter even on the administrative side and consequently, it is open to challenge on the ground that the Rule is irrational with no object behind it to be achieved, when the maximum age cap of 27 years is already prescribed.