BREAKING| DJSE & DHJSE 2022 : Supreme Court Relaxes Upper-Age Limit For Age-Barred Candidates Who Were Eligible In 2020 & 2021; Upholds Minimum Age Criteria Of 35 Years For DHJS

The Supreme Court on Monday relaxed the upper-age limit of 32 years for the Delhi Judicial Service Examinations (DJSE) and 45 years for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examinations (DHJSE) of 2022 for those candidates, who were eligible in 2020 and 2021 but have become age-barred this year.

The Court granted the relaxation for the 2022 recruitments taking into account the fact that exams were not held in 2020 and 2021 due to institutional reasons and COVID-19 pandemic respectively. The last exams were held in 2019. The Delhi High Court also agreed to grant this relaxation with respect to upper-age limit for such candidates.

Although only the issue of upper-age limit for DJS was before the Court, it invoked the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend similar upper-age limit relaxation for DHJSE as well, observing that the same principle must apply to both the exams. The Court clarified that the age-relaxation is given as a "one-time measure" for 2022 having regard to the extraordinary circumstances.

DHJSE minimum age limit upheld

At the same time, the Court upheld the minimum age criteria of 35 years for applying for DHJSE, observing that it was a policy matter. The Court referred to the 2018 judgment in the case Hirandra Kumar vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which upheld the 35 year old minimum age limit and 45 year old upper age limit prescribed by the Rules of the Allahabad High Court for participating in Higher Judicial Service selection in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions in High Court challenging the DHJSE minimum age criteria after transferring them to itself.

Exams postponed

In view of the relaxation for upper-age limit, the Supreme Court has deferred the DHJSE and DJS exams. For DJS, the last date for applications has been extended to April 3 and the exams have been postponed to April 24. For DHJSE, the last date of application has been extended to March 26 and exam date has been postponed to April 3.

The High Court agreed to postpone the last date for applications and reschedule the exams accordingly. A notification in that regard will be issued.

"We direct no impediment shall be caused in conduct of exams and no order of stay shall be ordered by any other court in variance of this order", the Court directed.

Delhi Judicial Service Exam (DJSE)

In a relaxation to the upper-age criteria of 32 years for the Delhi Judicial Service Examinations, the Delhi High Court on Monday agreed to allow candidates, who were eligible in 2020 and 2021 (when exams were not held) to participate in the present exam despite crossing the upper-age limit.

 "As far as people who have crossed age limit due to Covid, we'll permit people who'd have otherwise been eligible in 2021", Senior Advocate ADN Rao, appearing for the Delhi High Court, told the Supreme Court. 

"Are you suggesting upper age limit of 32 be relaxed so whoever was 32 in 2021 will be eligible?", Justice Chandrachud asked Rao.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for Devina Sharma (the DJS aspirant who approached the High Court seeking upper-age limit relaxation), submitted that due to COVID, the DJS exam was not held in 2020 and 2021. He clarified that the petitioner is not seeking a postponement of the exam and was only seeking accommodation for her.

The bench said that it will be difficult to restrict the relief to the petitioner alone and the relief might have to be extended to all similarly situated persons.

"We cannot only grant relief to you. We have to give similarly placed persons an equal bite of the cherry", Justice Chandrachud said. 

Case relating to Delhi Higher Judicial Service Exam (DHJSE)

The bench also considered another petition which was filed challenging the order passed by the High Court deferring the DHJSE. As regards DHJSE, the controversy is relating to the minimum age limit criteria of 35 years fixed by the High Court Rules for appearing in the DHJSE.

The petitioners have challenged the Rule brought by the High Court by contending that the Constitution of India, by virtue of Article 233, makes an advocate with seven years of practice eligible to be appointed as a District Judge. Therefore, the High Court cannot frame a Rule prescribing a minimum age limit of 35 years to apply for District Judge post.

Senior Advocate Amartji Singh Chandhiok, appearing for the candidates, pointed out that the High Court had relaxed this condition as 32 years in 2019, and few candidates who are below 35 years have got selected too. So, now to reintroduce the 35 years limit for the present year leads to incongruity.

"Prima facie it seems to be a valid requirement, you're recruiting people for higher judiciary. So if High Court thinks you need certain amount of maturity whats wrong in that", Justice Chandrachud observed.

Chandiok pointed out that the Constitutional requirement is only 7 years of practice. Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra, Anita Shenoy and Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for intervenors, also made submissions against the 35 year old minimum age criteria.

"In 1950, the Constituent Assembly felt it was 7 years and that was the postcard age. Now it is the internet age. So the conventional wisdom may have to change in this context", Naidu submitted. 

"But we don't appoint judges to High Courts before 45 and Supreme Court before 55, right?", Justice Chandrachud asked. 

Advocate MK Bharadwaj, another intervenor in the case, pointed out that in the Madras Bar Association case, the Supreme Court had struck down the minimum age criteria of 50 years for appointments as judicial members in Tribunals. "There's no reasonable nexus of having age criteria when there's experience of 7 years", he submitted.

Advocate Aditya Singh, another intervenor, submitted, "I became 32 years in December 2020 so had there been an exam in 2020 I'd have been eligible". 

The candidates prayed that they be allowed to participate in the DHJSE provisionally and that the High Court be asked to finally decide the pending writ petitions and that their selection be made subject to the outcome of the case.

ADN Rao for the High Court urged that there be no interference with respect to the 35 year old limit. He referred to the 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court in Hirandra Kumar vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which upheld the 35 year old minimum age limit and 45 year old upper age limit prescribed by the Rules of the Allahabad High Court for participating in Higher Judicial Service selection in Uttar Pradesh.

What happened during the previous hearing?

On the last occasion, a Bench led by CJI Ramana had made a prima facie observation that it was not appropriate on the part of the Delhi High Court to extend the last date for submitting applications and the date of exams for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination(DHJSE) 2022, having regard to the fact that over 1200 applications have already been received.

The Court had directed that the petitioners, who have filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the minimum age criteria for DHJSE, be asked to submit their applications by the originally notified last date, which happens to be March 12.

"It is unfortunate that Petitioners before the High Court haven't made attempt to submit their application for the post. They moved High Court seeking relaxation of age. The High Court has while issuing notice directed extending the application date beyond 7th April. In all fairness, taking into consideration of the fact that more than 1200 applications received it was not prima facie appropriate to extend the time limit and extend the exam", the Bench had observed in the order passed in the DHJS exam. 

Background

Petition for Relaxation in Upper Age Limit Of Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2022:

The petitioner sought relaxation in the upper age limit for the exam before the High Court. While the last date of submission of application was March 20, the preliminary exam was scheduled for March 27.

"The date of receiving applications shall be rescheduled to a date after the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the date of holding the exam shall also be postponed," the High Court Bench had ordered while listing the matter for further hearing on April 7.

It was the case of the petitioner that since she was born in April 1989, she was not eligible to apply for the DJS examination for the reason of being beyond the upper age limit of 32 years as on January 1, 2022. Therefore, relaxation in the upper age limit was sought owing to the delay in conducting examination amid Covid-19.

Petition challenging minimum age limit of 35 years in the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Exam:

The petition before the High Court has been filed on behalf of two advocates namely Nisha Tomar and Mohit Gupta, aspirants for Delhi Higher Judicial Services 2022 however, have been rendered ineligible for want of completion of 35 years of age on the date of reckoning, i.e. January 1, 2022.

The petitioners sought quashing of the impugned notification dated February 8, 2022 amending the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 introducing Rule 9(3) and subsequent advertisement dated February 23, 2022 issued by the Respondents authorities.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the Impugned Notification whereby the minimum age limit for appearing in the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Exam from the Bar has been introduced by amending the earlier recruitment Rules.

A Division Bench led by Justice Manmohan observed in the order passed on March 4 as follows :

"However, this Court is of the view that since the minimum age limit has been re-introduced after a hiatus of two years, the matters require consideration. Let the counter affidavits be filed by the respondents within two weeks. Rejoinder affidavits, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. List on 07th April, 2022. The respondents are directed to extend the date for filling up the online application form beyond the next date of hearing."

Case Title: High Court of Delhi vs Devina Sharma, High Court of Delhi v Nisha Tomar