KOMAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The vires of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Rules") to the extent it prescribes 23 years as the minimum age as a condition of eligibility for direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Civil Judge") is under challenge in the instant petition. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is a law graduate from the National Law University, Gandhi Nagar and presently, aged 21 years and 6 months. Rule 17 of the Rules prescribes the limits of age as a condition of eligibility for direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge as hereunder-

(3.) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Commission") on 22.7.2011 invited applications for direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Service") governed by the Rules. According to the petitioner, because of her age, though she was otherwise qualified, her candidature would not be accepted. According to her, as the age of majority in the country is 18 years and in many other Public Services, the minimum cut-off age is 21 years, the prescription of 23 years as the minimum age in the Rules is apparently arbitrary and discriminatory and thus, Rule 17 so far as it relates to this stipulation ought to be adjudged unconstitutional, null and void.