SURESWAHR THAKUR Vs. HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the relief to quash the notice issued by the Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, inviting applications for an unreserved temporary post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, stipulating the persons eligible to apply for the post and such of those who will not be so eligible, making it further known that applications complete in all respects as envisaged in the notice should reach the Registry of this Court on or before 15.7.1998, filed as Annexure P-1, and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinvite applications for the post by fixing the cutoff date as the last date of submission of application form for the post. In the alternative, the Petitioner has also prayed that in case the Respondents complete the selection process during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the results may not be declared or the claim of the Petitioner may also be considered along with the other persons who have applied for the post by making comparative assessment of all the persons applying for the said post with the merit of the Petitioner and grant him all consequential benefits to which he may be entitled to.

(2.) From the averments made in the Writ Petition it is seen that the date of birth of the Petitioner is 18.5.1963, that he has secured B.A.(Hons) and LL.B. Degrees, that thereafter, he got himself enrolled in September 1987 as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh, his Enrolment No. being HIM/46/87 and that he has been practising till this date as an Advocate in this Court. After adverting to the notice published in the newspapers on 10.6.1998 and the details specified therein as to the persons who shall not be eligible for recruitment as also the specification relating to the last date for submission of application, the Petitioner challenged the notice insofar as it provided that no person shall be eligible for recruitment unless he "is not less than 35 years and not more than 45 years of age on the first day of January, 1998" on the ground that it is opposed to Rule 9(1)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Higher Judicial Service Rules"). The validity of the stipulation in this regard has been also challenged on the ground that there is no reasonableness and no object can be claimed to have been achieved by fixing the cut-off date as 1.1.1998, since, according to the Petitioner, in the present set of circumstances, the selection process in the ordinary course would be completed in the end of 1998 at its earliest and all persons becoming eligible after 1.1.1998 during such a long span would be arbitrarily denied the right of being considered as in the case of the present Petitioner. The cut-off date was said to have been arbitrarily fixed in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that in the present set of circumstances, it would be just and fair to read down the date 1.1.1998 in the Notification inviting applications as 15.7.1998 to do complete justice. The further stand taken in the affidavit is that if the appointment is to be made in 1998, the next following year for the purpose of completing 35 years would be necessarily 1.1.1999 and if it is to be made in 1999, the relevant date for completing the age of 35 years would be 1.1.2000. The grievance about the deprivation of his right to be considered as entitled to him under Article 16 of the Constitution of India in not fixing the cut-off date for completition of the age 35 years as on 15.7.1998 has also been urged in the affidavit.

(3.) When the matter came up on 8.7.1998 for orders regarding admission, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the matter requires to be disposed of expeditiously without any further delay. In such circumstances, this Court issued a show-cause notice as to why the Writ Petition should not be admitted and the learned Advocate-General accepted notice for the second Respondent and Ms,. P.P. Grewal, counsel for the Respondent No. 1, accepted notice. They also requested that they may be given four days time to get instructions in the matter and be ready with their briefs and that since the writ petition involves interpretation of Rule 9(1) of the Higher Judicial Service Rules, there is no need to file any reply and that the matter can be heard and disposed of on hearing the arguments on either side. Since the last date for receiving applications was fixed as 15.7.1998, the writ petition has been directed to be listed on 13.7.1998 to see whether it is possible to dispose of the matter by then.