Plea In SC To Relax Age Limit For OBC Candidates Appearing For District Judge Exam [Read Petition]

The present upper age limit to appear in an examination for the position of District Judge for a candidate belonging to the OBC category is 45 years.

The petition has been preferred against an order dated February 6, 2020, passed by a division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice AP Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad.

Vide the impugned judgment in NS Sivakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, the High Court had held that the issue in question had attained finality at the hands of Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247.

In the said case, the top court had accepted the Shetty Commission report in relation to age relaxation, which did not contain any separate age relaxation for the Backward Classes.

The Petitioner has however contended that the High Court ought to have considered the facts of the case, whereby the Petitioner and many other similarly placed candidates lost their opportunity to even appear in the examination while they were within the prescribed age limit, since the High Court did not notify vacancies for six years.

"High Court failed to conduct examination every year as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malik Mazahar Sultan case, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 703, the Petitioner could not participate in the selection process when the Petitioner was well within the age limit as prescribed by the Hon'ble Jagannatha Shetty Commission. Therefore, the High Court exercising the inherent powers under Article 233 to 235 of the Constitution ought to have permitted the Petitioner by relaxing upper age at 48 years," the plea read.

It is noteworthy that at the time of dismissing the petition, the high court had held that loss of opportunity on account of delay in the holding of examinations by itself, without there being any mala fides attributed, cannot be a ground to introduce any further relaxation in age.

He also pointed out that the recruitment rules provided age relaxation to the Backward Class candidates for recruitment to the other posts of the Subordinate Judiciary, but the same was not extended for recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level).

"There is no rationale behind not providing of this relaxation to the candidates who are seeking to participate in the selection process for the post of the District Judge (Entry Level). In the absence of any distinctive rational for the said purpose, there cannot be any justification for not providing any such relaxation to the petitioners," he said.

The Petitioner has also contended that the High Court had dismissed the writ petition under an "erroneous" assumption that he sought to bring the upper age limit for the OBC category at par with Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) candidates.

While dismissing the petition, the high court had observed that the present arrangement stipulating different upper age limits for two different categories was a "valid indicator of prescription" and did not merit interference.

Opposing this very observation the Petitioner has submitted,

"Though there was no pleading for reservation on par with Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribe, the High Court has arrived at an erroneous conclusion the Petitioner is claiming reservation on par with Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe."

Inter alia, the Petitioner has relied on a notification issued by the high court authorities on January 13, 2019, whereby the upper age limit for an OBC candidate for appointment as a District Judge was stated to be 48 years.

"The High Court has erred in not extending the benefit of age relaxation up to 48 years to the candidates applied in present notification as provided in the previous notification Vide No.1/2019 dated 13.01.2019, the object sought to be achieved in relaxing the age to accommodate the candidates who were well within the age limit when there was no selection proceeding for the past 6 years has become a futile exercise for the reason that the said selection process ended in nil selection," he has submitted.

He further pointed out that the high court authorities had been periodically taking different stand for fixing maximum age limit without following fixed parameter.

Pertinently, the high court had also held that such an age relaxation is not permissible under the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007.

Assailing this observation, the Petitioner has contended that,

"the High Court failed to exercise the Inherent power under the Article 233 and 234 of the Constitution on the ground that rules framed by the State Government is fixed at 45 years as upper age limit, in complete negation of Constitutional duty entrusted on the High Court. Thereby the Decision of the High Court is against the Doctrine of Separation of Powers as Contemplated under the Article 50 of the Constitution of the India which is the Basic Structure of the Constitution as held by this Hon'ble Court in Kesavananda Barathi case as reported in (1973) 4SCC 226."

The matter is scheduled to be taken up by the Supreme Court on March 6, 2020.

Counsel for the Petitioner- Advocates V. Vasanthakumar, Lakshmi Ramamurthy and E. Om Prakash Senior

Click Here To Download Petition

Read Petition