ARCHANA AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner states that she passed her LL. B. examination in the year 1987 from Agra University and, therefore, enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 10. 02. 1990, and is practicing in District Court Mathura. According to her, she is fully eligible to appear in the RJS Examination, 2001 and she has the requisite experiences of 3 years as a Lawyer for appearing in the RJS examination. It is also her case that in the Advertisement and in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, the age of relaxation of five years has been provided to the SC/st candidates only, but the age relaxation to the female candidate has not been provided; though, the age relaxation is provided in all other Rules. THE age relaxation for RJS examination has been provided to only SC/st candidates, which is not only violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, but is also against the national policy as the relaxation of reservation has been provided to the female candidates.

(3.) IT is settled proposition of law that no direction contrary to the rules can ever be issued. Therefore, in our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief of age relaxation. Fixing the age limit classification/categorisation/relaxation is primarily for the Legislature or for the statutory authority charged with the duty of framing the terms and conditions of service. If looked at from the point of the authority making it, there is no discrimination and the classification is found to rest on a reasonable basis and, therefore, the rule as it stands, has to be upheld. The Supreme Court in many cases, has held that the Court cannot issue a mandamus to violate the law or to act in violation of the law. The Court cannot perform the legislative functions and that the Court has no power to act contrary to the existing law.