HIRANDRA KUMAR versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 29-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
HIRANDRA KUMAR
v.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1343 of 2018)
JANUARY 29, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 :
rr. 8, 12 – Challenge to – Rule 8(1) inter alia postulates that
from time to time, but not later than three years from the last
recruitment, the High Court shall determine the number of officers
to be taken at the recruitment – Under r.12, inter alia minimum age
criterion of 35 years and maximum age limit of 45 years is stipulated
– Advertisement issued for direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh
Higher Judicial Service (UPHJS) – Petitioners applied – Debarred
on grounds of age – Constitutional validity of rr.8(1) and 12
challenged inter alia on the grounds that by operation of rr.8 and
12, candidates who have crossed the age limit prescribed between
the date of the last recruitment and the present recruitment by the
lapse of three years in the interregnum get debarred from appearing
in the examination – And also that in view of directions of Supreme
Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan regarding time schedule fixed for
filling up vacancies in judicial services, the vacancies in HJS have
to be filled up on yearly basis – Held: Constitutional validity of r.8
was upheld in Suraj Bali Singh by the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court, special leave petition against which was
withdrawn – Validity of r.12 was upheld by another Division Bench
of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Agarwal – Certain degree
of arbitrariness may appear on the face of any cut-off or age limit
which is prescribed, since a candidate on the wrong side of the line
may stand excluded as a consequence – That, however, is no reason
to hold that the prescribed cut-off is arbitrary – Validity of the Rule
cannot be made to depend on cases of individual hardship which
inevitably arise in applying a principle of general application –
Further, directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan do not create an
enforceable right in any candidate for selection or to assert a right
to age relaxation in violation of the rule – No merit in the challenge
to the constitutional validity of rr. 8 and 12 – Petitioners had
608
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 608
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
609
sufficient opportunities in the past to appear for the HJS
examinations when they were within the age limit – Having not
succeeded in that, their attempt at moving Supreme Court to seek
relaxation of the Rules or to challenge the Rules, is misconceived –
Constitution of India – Arts.142, 233(2).
Service Law – Selection – Age limit/Cut-off date – Challenge
to – Held: Power to fix cut-off date or age limit is incidental to the
regulatory control which an authority exercises over the selection
process – For a cut-off to be arbitrary and ultra vires, it must be
fixed without any rational basis or be manifestly unreasonable to
be violative of Art.14 of the Constitution – Constitution of India –
Art.14.
Rule 8(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service
Rules, 1975 inter alia postulates that from time to time, but not
later than three years from the last recruitment, the High Court
shall determine the number of officers to be taken at the
recruitment. Under Rule 12 of the 1975 Rules inter alia a minimum
age criterion of 35 years and a maximum age limit of 45 years is
stipulated (relaxable by three years for SC and ST candidates).
An advertisement was issued for direct recruitment to the Uttar
Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (UPHJS). Petitioners applied
but, were debarred on grounds of age as being not compliant
with the age limit prescribed in Rule 12. Writ petitions filed by
the petitioners and C.A No. 1262 of 2019 filed by the appellant
therein, challenging the constitutional validity of Rules  8(1) and
12 of the 1975 Rules.
Dismissing the writ petitions and the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1  The directions which have been issued in Malik
Mazhar Sultan are being monitored by Supreme Court. The
Allahabad High Court has been submitting progressive reports
which are monitored by this Court for compliance. The purpose
of the directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan was to ensure that
vacancies in the district judiciary are not left unfilled over long
periods of time, undermining the efficacy of the judicial system.
Equally, the Court was cognizant of the fact that each High Court
has its recruitment rules. It is in view of that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.