Gauhati High Court Upholds The Minimum Age For District Judges In Assam

The Gauhati High Court recently upheld the minimum age limit for appointment of District Judges in Assam.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Soumitra Saikia held that the limitation on age has a rational and reasonable nexus with the Rules of Assam Judicial Service Rules of 2003, and said that the Rule 1 of Assam Judicial Service Rules of 2003 providing an age limit to grade-1 judicial officers is not arbitrary.

The petition was filed by a Pooja Agarwal challenged the constitutional validity of the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2003 more particularly Rule 7, by which a minimum age of 35 years and a maximum age of 45 years has been prescribed as an essential qualification for appointment to Higher Judicial Service in Assam.

The petitioner's main argument was that Article 233 of the Constitution of India prescribes the qualification for appointment of District Judges, where there is no mention of minimum age of 35 years as a qualification for appointment as a District Judge. That the State cannot bring in the age as a qualification in its Rules, as that would be against the constitutional provision. She argued that the said age limit is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Court after hearing her arguments examined the judgement laid down by the Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association v Union of India and High Court of Delhi v Devina Sharma, wherein the Apex Court discussed the provisions of Article 233 as well as Article 235 of the Constitution of India. Court said that Article 233(2) of the Constitution stipulates that a person will be eligible to be appointed as a District Judge if he has been, for not less than 7 years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment, Article 233(1) prescribes that appointment of persons, posting and promotion of District Judges shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to that State. Merely because the Constitution is silent on the minimum age would not mean that those entrusted with the Rule making power cannot make such provision.

"The post of a District Judge is at a senior level in the cadre. Age is not extraneous to the acquisition of maturity and experience, especially in judicial institutions which handle real problems and confront challenges to liberty and justice. The High Courts are well within their domain in prescribing a requirement which ensures that candidates with sufficient maturity enter the fold of the higher judiciary. The requirement that a candidate should be at least 35 years of age is intended to sub-serve this."

It was noted by the Court that Article 141 of the Constitution of India states that a law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India.

"Be that as it may, Article 141 of the Constitution of India states that a law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. Undoubtedly what is binding is the ratio laid down in the said case. This is irrespective of the fact whether while doing so the Apex Court may or may not have considered all aspects of the matter."

In view of the above the court did not find any merit in challenge to the Assam Rules. The petition was dismissed.