MALIK MAZHAR SULT AN AND ANR. versus U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 689 · Decided: 03-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MALIK MAZHAR SULT AN AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. 
APRIL 3, 2006 
[Y.K. SABHARWALCJ. ANDC.K. THAKKER,J.] 
B 
UP. Judicial Service Rules, ,2001 ; Rule 4(m) and IO-Age Limit for 
recruitment of candidates to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-State 
initially requisitioned State Public Service Commission in November 2002 C 
for recruitment of candidates to available posts in phases~<;tate later modified 
the requisition in November 2003 by directing the Commission to recruit 
candidates for all the posts together-Issue of Advertisement for holding the 
examination to select the candidates got delayed by one year and was issued 
in November 2003-Age limit specified is that the candidates must not have 
attained the maximum age of 35 years as on /st .July 2004-Relaxation of D 
maximum age limit was made for the candidates within the age as on I st .July 
2001 and /st .Ju~v 2002-Commission later withdrew the relaxation of age 
limir after conducting the examination-Writ Petitions filed by excluded 
candidares before High Coun-High Court held that the candidates who 
were less than the upper age limir as on I st July 2003 are eligible for E 
recruitment-Correctness of-Held, an error in the advertisement cannot 
override the Rules a.1d would not create a right in favour of a candidate who 
is not eligible under the Rules-On facts, the year of recruitment is July 
2002c.June 2003-Jfence, under the main part of Rule IO, candidates who 
have 11ot attained maximum age as on I st July 2004 are eligible for 
recruitment-Under the second proviso to Rule JO read with Rule 4(m). since p 
the examination was held in March 2004, relaxation of age limit is available 
for those candidates who have not attained maximum age as on 1st .July 
2002-Directions to State Governments, Union Territories and High Courts 
lo fix time schedule evel)• year for filling up judicial vacancies in time. 
In November 2002, State directed State Public Service Commission to G 
conduct examination, make selection of 347 candidates for the post of Civil Judge 
(Junior Division) in State Judicial Service in three phases and send its 
recommendations to it by March 2003. In July 2003, by a second requisition, the 
State informed the Commission to make selection of347 candidates in two phases. 
The commission was asked to give advertisement in accordance with the H 
689 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20061 3 S.C.R. 
A provisions of lJ.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001 as amended in March 2003. In 
November 2003, by a third requisition, the State informed the Commission to 
hold selection together for 347 posts. 
The Commission accordingly issued an advertisement in November 2003. 
With regard to age limit, advertisement stated that the candidates must have 
B attained the age of 22 years and must not have attained the age of more than 35 
years on 1st July 2004. It was also stated that those candidates who were within 
the age on 1st July 2001 and Ist July 2002 shall be treated within age for this 
examination. 
C 
The preliminary and main examinations were held and the successful 
candidates were called for interview in April 2005. At the instance of the High 
Court, the Commission examined the issue of the age relaxation benefit of period 
during which examination could not be held under the Rules and came to a 
conclusion that the relaxation of the age limit was wrongly given in the 
advertisement due to misinterpretation of the Rules. The Com mission took the 
D decision of cancellation ofrelaxation of age limit and rejection of those candidates 
who were over-aged as on 1st July, 2004. 
The result of the examination was declared excluding the candidates who 
were over- aged as on 1st July 2004. The excluded candidates filed Writ Petitions 
before High Comi. The High Court disposed of the writ petitions by holding that 
E the recruitment year is July 2002-June 2003 since the recruitment process was 
initiated in November 2002; that all candidates who were less than the upper age 
limit as on 1st July 2003 would be eligible for 2003 recruitment; and that the 
candidates who had crossed the upper age limit according to their respective 
categories upto 30th June, 2003 will not be eligible under the Rules. 
F 
G 
Hence the appeals were filed by the State Public Service Commission, the 
candidates who were within the age on 1st July 2001 and 1st July 2002 and by 
the candidates who were within the age on 1st July 2004, challenging 

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