INDRAVADAN SHAH versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 926 · Decided: 19-03-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
926 
. INDRAVADl,ll H. SHAH 
v • 
. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
MARCH 19, 1986 
[A.P, SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14 and. 16 -
No 
discriminstion in appointment either by promotion or direct 
recruitment - Necessity for. 
Gujarat· Judicial Service Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 
1979 - Rules 6(4)(i) and 6(4)(iii)(a) - Promotion to Assistant 
Judge from -category of Civil Judge Junior /Senior Di vision -
Imposition of age restriction - Whether ultra vires Articles 
14 and 16 •. 
The Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Hules 1961 as 
1111ended upto 1979 lay down the mode of recruitment to and 
coutitution of the Gujarat Judicial Service. The Service 
ahall conatitute of two branches, namely, (1) Junior Branch 
and (2) Senior Branch. 111t1ea 6(4)(i) and 6(4)(iii)(a) provide 
that a Civil Judge (Senior Division) after completing 48 years 
of age will not be eligible for conaideration for proetion to 
the post of Assistant Judge and bis nsme appearing in the 
select liet will be struck out theref roa on bis completion of 
48 yeare. 
The appellant va found llUitable for appointment by 
pr01110tion to the post of Assistant Judge and his name appeared 
in the Select List prepared for the year 1982-83. His turn did 
not C01lle up and the select list lapsed on 30.4.1983. On that 
date as he had already c09Pleted 48 years, his name was not 
put on the select li•t for the year 1983-84. 
The appellant filed a writ petition under Art.226 
G 
ueailing the validity of Bulee 6(4)(i) and 6(4)(Ui)(a) 
H 
alleging 
that 
they 
were 
unreasonable, 
arbitrary, 
discrillinatory and violatin of Arta. 14 and 16. 
The High Court dialliased the petition holding that the 
age restriction provi<led lly the recruiting authorities for 
:•-. 
}- ... 
INDRAVADAN v. STATE 
927 
different cadres of post is not repugnsnt to Arti~le 14 of the 
Constitution; that this system was in vogue for many decades, 
even in the bilingual State of Bombay; that though there was 
no restriction regarding age for selection from the members of 
A 
the Bar to the post of District Judge, there was age limit for 
B 
selection and appointment by promotion from the members of 
Junior Branch to the post of Assistant Judges; that members of 
the Bar have got free atmosphere to work and there was enough 
scope for them to better develop their mental faculty. If for 
an important post like that of a District Judge, a member of 
the Bar is to be recruited in order to enthuae fresh blood at 
that important position of the service cadre, it can be said 
c 
to be a different class altogether; that there was no discri-
mination by introducing age bar in the recruitment rules so 
far as the appointment to the post of Assistant Judges by 
promotion is concerned and that the class of Assistant Judges 
and the class of District Judges for this purpose constitute 
two different classes. 
· 
D 
In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant, 
the contentions raised in the High Court were reiterated. On 
behalf of the respondent-High Court, it was cont.ended: (1) 
that the age restriction for proi.otioa . to .·the. post of 
Assistant Judge was in vogue since 1924 or so even in the 
E 
erstwhile State of Bombay, though there was no age limit for 
selection to the post of District Judge from the Bar; (2) that 
the rationale underlying the age restriction for recruitment 
to the post of Assistant Judge is that they should have 
sufficient number of years left before they reach the age of 
superannuation so that their services can be utilised as 
F 
District Judges; (3) that the pay scale of Civil Judges 
(Senior Division) and that of the Assistant Judges is . the 
same; if an incumbent is taken as an Assistant Judge af an 
advanced stage, he may have to retire as an Assisi:a11t ·Judge 
and he will not have a"Y pecumary gain; aDd (4) that a Civil 
Judge (Senior Division) or Civil Judge (Junor Division) who 
G 
completes 48 years of age may not be fully equipped with the 
physical and mental calibre for that higher post calling for 
essentially different type of duties, n911ely, conducting of 
Sessions cases, appeals etc. 
Allowing the appeal, 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 1 s.c.R. 
HELD: '1, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ensure 
that there should not be any discrimination in the matter of 
appointment in service, nor there will be any arbitrariness or 
unreasonableness in the

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