RAM YAD YADAV Vs. HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner on account of having become overage for recruitment as District Judge (Entry Level) Direct from Bar Examination, 2019 has come up praying for a direction to modify the Advertisement No. BSJS/1/2019 dated 19.01.2019 for reckoning the maximum age of 50 years as on 01.01.2017 instead of 01.01.2019.

(2.) The petitioner admittedly is 52 years of age and he submits that the maximum age prescribed, which is 50 years, should be reckoned on 01.01.2017 on the premise that the respondents have not held the examinations of District Judge (Entry Level) direct from Bar timely. It is also submitted that the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 as amended w.e.f. 16th February, 2017 also provides for recruitment on yearly basis and for applicability of the roster on yearly basis and, therefore, if the respondents have delayed the holding of the examinations, the same should not defeat the right of the petitioner to take an attempt in the examinations. Reliance has been placed on the order passed on 16th January, 2014 by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak, Ramchander Sahu and Anil Kumar Singh vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. (W.P. (s) No. 7526 of 2013 with I.A. No. 173 of 2014).

(3.) Responding to the said contention Sri Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel for the High Court has invited the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Deo Narayan Prasad vs. the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Anr. decided on 14th February, 2019 declining to grant extension. It is also urged that the order of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court proceeded on the premise that there was no provision of a cut-off date for determining the maximum age prescribed for the purpose of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Munsif). It is submitted that in the instant case the 1951 Rules as amended in 2017 carries a clear prescription to that effect. The validity of the said Rule is not under-challenge and even otherwise in the absence of any power of relaxation having been exercised by the High Court, the same cannot be individually availed of by the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the claim of the petitioner is unfounded and the petition deserves to be dismissed.