POOJA AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Pooja Agarwal, petitioner-in-person. Also heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior standing counsel, Gauhati High Court, who appears for the respondents.

(2.) By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Assam Rules'), more particularly Rule 7, by which a minimum age of 35 years and a maximum age of 45 years has been prescribed as an essential qualification for appointment to Higher Judicial Service in Assam.

(3.) The main argument of the petitioner before this Court is that Article 233 of the Constitution of India prescribes the qualification for appointment of District Judges, where there is no mention of minimum age of 35 years as a qualification for appointment as a District Judge. Consequently, the State cannot bring the age as a qualification in its Rules, as that would be against the constitutional provision. It has also been argued before us that in any case, prescribing a minimum age for Higher Judicial Service is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Anr., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 463 is relied by the petitioner for this purpose.