Divyam vs State Of Jharkhand Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3563 Jhar

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               W.P. (S) No. 5206 of 2023
1. Divyam,
2. Rohan Thakur,
3. Prabhakar Kumar Sinha,
4. Anil Thakur,
5. Vatan,
6. Abhishek Choubey
7. Lav,
8. Nishikant Prasad,
9. Raj Kumar Verma,
10. Santosh Kumar Jha          ...      ...     ...      ...      ...      Petitioners
                     Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
    Rajbhasa Department, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. Jharkhand High Court through its Registrar, Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi
                                              ...      ...      ...   Respondents
                     ---------
CORAM:         SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
               SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

---------

For the Petitioners: M/s. Samad Ahmad, Avishek Prasad, Amit Kumar Sinha, Rabindra Kumar, Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocates For the State: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.

For the JPSC:                  Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
For the JHC:                   Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
                     ---------
02/Dated: 19.09.2023

The petitioners have prayed for age relaxation in view of the fact that

for the last five years, there has been no recruitment of the Civil Judge (Jr.

Division) in the State of Jharkhand. At present, an advertisement has been

issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for recruitment of Civil

Judges (Jr. Division) and the petitioners are overage. It is apparent from

the record that there has been no following of guidelines given by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) vs. U.P.

Public Service Commission, (2008) 17 SCC 703.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hirandra Kumar vs. High Court

of Judicature at Allahabad & Another, (2020) 17 SCC 401, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it should not extend to upper age limit

by predating the cut-off date. However, the fact of that case is different from

the present bunch of cases in the sense that in The Uttar Pradesh Judicial

Service Rules, 1975, a time-limit has been provided in Rule 8 and the upper

age limit has been provided in Rule 12. However, in the rule that guide the

Jharkhand Recruitment for Civil Judges (Jr. Division), there is no such time

limit prescribed. In that view of the matter, the direction given by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan's case (supra), should be followed

by the State of Jharkhand as well as the Jharkhand Public Service

Commission. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to issue notice.

Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to learned A.G., accepts notice on behalf of

respondents-State of Jharkhand; Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel,

accepts notice on behalf of Jharkhand High Court through its Registrar

General, and; Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel, accepts notice on

behalf of Jharkhand Public Service Commission. They have already

received advance copy of the brief.

Let them file counter affidavit within six weeks.

Rejoinder, if any, two weeks thereafter.

Put up this case on 06.12.2023.

In the interregnum, we further direct that all these petitioners would

be allowed to fill-in their forms in physical mode and if they are found

otherwise eligible, not on the question of the overage, then they shall be

allowed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to take the

examinations. However, the final result shall be subject to the outcome of

the writ petition, with a further stipulation that the petitioners shall not claim

any equity on the basis of the orders passed by us in the interregnum.

Let a free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Piprawall for early

compliance.

Urgent Certified copies as per rules.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

(Ananda Sen, J.) Manoj/MM