By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday relaxed the upper-age limit of 32 years for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination (DJSE) and 45 years for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination (DHJSE) for candidates who were eligible in 2020 and 2021 but have now become age-barred in the current year.
The top court took into account the fact that the examination was not conducted in 2020 due to institutional reasons and in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, A S Bopanna and Hema Kohli said the age relaxation is given as a one-time measure for examinations to be held in 2022 given the extraordinary circumstances.
“We will allow the candidates eligible in 2020 and 2021, when they have not crossed the age of 32 years to appear in examination this year. We will also extend the same benefit for the ones who had not crossed the upper age limit of 45 years in 2020 and 2021 for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination this year,” the bench said.
The top court upheld the minimum age criteria of 35 years for applying for DHJSE as it was a policy decision taken by the Delhi High Court.
“We are upholding the minimum age criteria of 35 years age (for the DHJS),” the bench said, while referring to a 2019 verdict where it had upheld 35 year minimum age limit and 45 years upper age limit prescribed by the rules of Allahabad High Court for Higher Judicial Service examination in Uttar Pradesh.
The bench also extended the last date for filling up of applications for the DJSE and DHJSE, which will be now April 3 and March 26 respectively and the examination will be held on April 24 and April 3 respectively.
“We direct that no impediment shall be caused in conduct of the examinations and no order of stay shall be ordered by any other court in variance of this order,” it said.
The top court was hearing two separate appeals filed by the Delhi High Court on its administrative side against two separate orders passed in judicial side postponing this year’s DJSE and DHJSE.
At the outset, senior advocate A D N Rao, appearing for the Delhi High Court, said they will permit people who would have otherwise been eligible in 2021 and have now crossed the minimum age limit.
The bench said, “The constitution does not bar some to become a judge at 33 or 34. You are appointing a member in the higher judicial services and you require candidates with a sufficient degree of maturity, fixing a upper age limit of 32 or 45 years is a subject matter which has been upheld by this court in its judgement.”
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for one of the aspirants, said the examination was not held in 2020 for administrative reasons and in 2021 due to COVID-19, as a result his client has crossed the minimum age limit of 32 years.
He said the petitioner is not seeking a postponement of the examination and was only seeking accommodation for her.
Kamat said his client has been contacted by the Delhi High Court and she was asked to apply for the examination, which has been done.
The bench said, “We cannot restrict the relief only to you or people who are before the court. We have to give opportunity to other similarly placed people, who are not before court, to have an equal bite of cherry. Why would a High Court postpone public examinations? We have to stop this tendency of postponing the examinations.”
Senior advocates A S Chandhiok, Anita Shenoy and D S Naidu appeared for various petitioners. The top court had on March 11, termed as “prima facie inappropriate” the Delhi High Court order of deferring by four weeks the DHJS Examination-2022 which was scheduled for March 20.
A division bench of the high court on March 4 had deferred by four weeks the DHJS Examination, which was to be held on March 20, while hearing a batch of pleas challenging the minimum age criteria of 35 years fixed for applying for the post of district judge.
Another division bench of the high court, on March 8, had directed that the last date for receiving applications for DJSE, 2022 be rescheduled and the exam be postponed while hearing a plea challenging fixation of an upper age limit of 32 for the candidates.
