Delhi High Court
Tarun Chandiok vs High Court Of Delhi Thr Registrar ... on 2 February, 2018
$~33, 34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: 2nd February, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 382/2018
ALOK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Maitri, Mr. Alok Kumar and
Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar,
Advocates
versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI THR REGISTRAR GENERAL AND
ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao and Mr.
Chaitanya Puri, Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 603/2018
TARUN CHANDIOK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Mahir Malhotra and Mr.
Varun Chandiok, Advocates for the
petitioner with petitioner in person.
versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI THR REGISTRAR GENERAL AND
ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao and Mr.
Chaitanya Puri, Advocates for
respondent no.1.
Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC with Mr.
Manashwy Jha, Advocate for
respondent no.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
W.P. (C) Nos.382/2018 & 603/2018 Page 1 of 5
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM.APPL 2654/2018(Exemption) in W.P.(C) 603/2018
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 382/2018 & CM.APPL 1609/2018(stay)
W.P.(C) 603/2018 & CM.APPL 2653/2018(stay)
3. These two petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Both the writ petitions raise a
common question. In W.P.(C).603/2018, the petitioner seeks a
direction in the nature of mandamus against the respondents thereby
directing them to modify the cut-off date for eligibility of candidates
who have attained the age of 35 years (but not attained the age of 45
years) as on from 01.01.2017 to 01.01.2018 while inviting online
applications w.e.f. 31.01.2018 vide notification dated 23.12.2017 with
respect to filling up of vacancies in Delhi Higher Judicial Service
Examination, 2017.
4. Mr. Tiku, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the examination is for the vacancies pertaining to 2016 and 2017.
He submits that even in the past, i.e., in the year 2015, the notification
was issued in the month of December as in the present case, when the
notification dated 23.12.2017 was published on 28.12.2017, fixed the
cut-off date with respect to the age criteria as 01.01.2017 in terms of
Rule 9(3) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970. Mr. Tiku
submits that, simply put, the effect of this cut-off date would be that a
candidate who has attained the age of 35 years post 01.01.2017 would
not be eligible, while the examination would be conducted in April,
2018 and results would be declared much later. In effect, there would
be serious prejudice to the rights of a candidate who had applied for
the post at a young age of 35 years, but may have second thoughts by
the time he is 37 plus as is likely to happen in the present case. He
submits that while the object should be to encourage youngsters to
accept the post, on the other hand, the outer limit being 45 years, even
a candidate who is 45 years on 01.01.2017 would be over 47 years by
the time the results are declared and in case he is declared successful,
he may have also have second thoughts. Additionally, it would not be
good for the system to appoint a person at the age of 47 plus for only
about 10 years, as the date of retirement is 58 years. Mr. Tiku further
submits that the submissions so made are to be considered in the light
of the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of
Malik Mazhar Sultan(3) and Another v. Uttar Pradesh Public
Service Commission and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 703,
which direction was reiterated on 14.07.2015. He has drawn the
attention of the Court, more particularly, to paragraph 7 and the
tabulation appearing therein. To buttress his argument that the
directions of the Supreme Court are, in fact, mandatory to the extent
that the number of vacancies to be notified by the High Court is by 31st
March, advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates is
by 15th April. Mr. Tiku contends that in case the directions were so
followed, such a situation as in the present case would not arise. He
submits that the previous examination was conducted in November,
2016 and the results were declared in December, 2016, but the final
result was declared as late as on 05.12.2017. Mr. Tiku submits that in
case an examination is conducted this year for the existing vacancies
of 2018 and 2019 (subject to availability of infrastructure for the
anticipated vacancies for the year 2019 having regard to the fact that
there are 10 retirements, 05 in 2018 and 05 in 2019 and there would be
consequential elevation), at least the petitioners would not be
prejudiced.
5. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that
the process with respect to the examination of 2015 was concluded on
05.02.2017 and immediately thereafter, an advertisement for the
vacancies of the year 2016 and 2017 were published. He further
explains that the delay between declaration of result of the written
examination and the final examination was for various administrative
and unusual reasons which may not happen in future. Mr. Rao points
out that necessary amendment to minimum age and consequent
amendment to Rule 9(3) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules,
1970 is under active consideration of the Full Court.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Prima facie, we are
of the considered view that the issue raised by Mr. Tiku, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner requires consideration. More
particularly, we are of the view that the effect of the present
advertisement would result in depriving candidates who have attained
the age of 35 years post 01.01.2017 and would include such candidates
who are 37 plus in the minimum age criteria, and similarly in the outer
age limit, the candidates who would be considered would be more
than 47 years of age by the time the process is completed, while the
objective should be to encourage young candidates around the age of
35 years and the maximum age of 45 years. Presently there is a
likelihood that the judiciary would lose out many suitable candidates
who would have second thoughts once having crossed a particular age.
7. At this stage, Mr. Rao seeks time to take instructions.
8. List on 27.02.2018.
9. Dasti to the parties under the signature of Court Master.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2018
pst
