SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge, in this bunch of writ petitions, is Rule 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 ("Rules" for short) which lays down the maximum age of 30 years for recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judges, Junior Division, in the State of Himachal Pradesh in case of general category candidates and 33 years in case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/other prescribed reserved categories as on the last date prescribed for receipt of applications.

(2.) Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service was constituted in the State of Himachal Pradesh on and with effect from April 19, 1973 under the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1973 ("1973 Rules" for short), made by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh in consultation with the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Public Service Commission under Article 234 read with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. By a deeming clause, in terms of Rule 6, Part-IV of the Rules, all those persons who were working as Subordinate Judges/Judicial Magistrates at the commencement of the Rules were deemed to be appointed to the Service under the 1973 Rules. Rule 3 of 1973 Rules provided maximum age limit for recruitment to the Judicial Service, as 30 years and minimum age of 21 years. However, the maximum age limit was extendable to 40 years for an Advocate who had practised at the Bar for a minimum period of four years and for an official, who was Law Graduate and serving with the High Court or any other Court subordinate thereto in the State of Himachal Pradesh or in H.P. Government Secretariat or Offices subordinate thereto and had served as such for a minimum aggregate period of four years. Candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Backward classes were also made entitled to benefit of maximum age which may be allowed by the Government for entry into the Service from time to time.

(3.) The Apex Court in All India fudges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (Review), 1993 4 SCC 288, passed certain directions for the recruitment and working conditions of the Judicial Service of a State(s). One of the direction was: