Gujarat High Court: In an application filed by a judiciary aspirant for allowing her to participate in the Civil Judge Recruitment Examination by granting age relaxation, a Single Judge Bench of Nirzar S. Desai, J., dismissed the application, holding that the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (‘the Rules’), did not mention any relaxation regarding a candidate being allowed to appear in the next examination if no recruitment was undertaken when they were within the age limit.
Background
The petitioner was a judiciary aspirant who did not exceed the upper age limit of 35 years on the first day of filling out the online application for the Civil Judge Recruitment Exam. However, she exceeded it on the last date of submission of the applications. It was contended that no recruitment was undertaken in 2023-2024, despite the availability of vacancies, and therefore, the petitioner did not get a chance to participate.
Clause 3 of the advertisement issued for calling applications for the Civil Judge Recruitment Examination (‘the advertisement’) provided that on the last date of submission of the online application form for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, a candidate belonging to the general category must not have crossed 35 years of age.
Aggrieved as to such ineligibility, the petitioner filed the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court perused Clause-3 of the advertisement and Rule 7(2)(c) of the Rules, which stated that the candidate must not have attained 35 years of age as of the last date fixed for receipt of applications.
The Court also perused the case Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 17 SCC 703, wherein the Supreme Court had considered Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules, 2001(‘PSC Rules’), which provided relaxation that where a candidate was eligible in terms of age to appear at the examination in any year of recruitment in which no such examination was held, he shall be deemed to be eligible in age to appear in the next following examination. The Court also laid down guidelines for filling up vacancies in Judicial positions.
However, the Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra), stating that a comparison of the Rules with the PSC Rules indicated that no such age relaxation was provided under the Rules. Therefore, the petitioner’s plea seeking permission to participate in the recruitment process by granting her relaxation in eligibility as per age could not be granted.
Holding the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the application.
[Bhavini Nagendrasinh Chauhan v. High Court of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 815, decided on 28-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Malavsingh N Chauhan
For the respondent: KM Antani
