HIGH COURT OF DELHI versus DEVINA SHARMA on 14 March 2022

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

v.

DEVINA SHARMA

(Civil Appeal No 2016 of 2022)

MARCH 14, 2022

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, A. S. BOPANNAAND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]

Judiciary: Upper age limit of 32 years appearing for Delhijudicial Service (DJS) examination and minimum age requirementof 35 years for appearing for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service(DHJS) examination – Validity of, challenged – Held: In regard tothe DJS examination 2022 – The High Court conducted the lastexamination for recruitment to the DJS in 2019 – No examinationwas held in 2020 for institutional reasons and in 2021 due to theonset of the Covid-19 pandemic – Suggestions of the High Courtwere accepted that candidates who would have fulfilled the upperage limit of 32 years for years 2020 and 2021, would be eligible toparticipate in the examination for the ensuing year 2022 – Hence,the last date of receipt of applications forms were extended andnew date of examination were announced – In regard to DHJSexamination – Clause (1) of Art.233 stipulates that appointments ofpersons, posting and promotion of District Judges shall be made bythe Governor of the State in consultation with the High Courtexercising jurisdiction in relation to the State – The Constitutionhas prescribed the requirement to the effect that a person shall beeligible for appointment as a District Judge only if he has been anadvocate or a pleader for at least seven years – What this means isthat a person who has not fulfilled the seven year norm is not eligible– The Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule makingpower by the High Courts to regulate the conditions of service orappointment – The Constitution being silent in regard to theprescription of a minimum age, the High Courts in the exercise oftheir rule making authority are entitled to prescribe such arequirement – The post of a District Judge is at a senior level in thecadre – Age is not extraneous to the acquisition of maturity andexperience, especially in judicial institutions which handle real

513

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aproblems and confront challenges to liberty and justice – Therequirement that a candidate should be at least 35 years of age isintended to sub-serve this – Hence, there is no valid basis to holdthat the requirement that a candidate for the DHJS should be atleast 35 years of age is invalid – On a parity of reasoning given inregard to DJS examination, permission given to candidates to appearBin 2022 examination who would have qualified in terms of upperage limit of 45 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021during which no examinations were held.

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

CHELD: 1.1 The time schedule for conducting therecruitment process to the judicial service has been stipulatedby the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) vs UttarPradesh Public Service Commission. The object and purpose ofthe directions of this Court has been to ensure that therecruitment process for the judicial service is conducted onDschedule every year, subject to the rules of each High Court.The High Court of Delhi held its last examination for recruitmentto DJS in 2019. Admittedly, no examination has been held in 2020or in 2021. The examination for 2020 could not be conductedsince the process for 2019 was still to be completed. TheEexamination for 2020 could not be held due to the onset of theCovid-19 pandemic. In this backdrop, since the examination wasnot conducted for two recruitment years, the High Court has afterconsidering the issue stated before this Court that as a one-timemeasure, this Court may accept the suggestion that candidateswho would have qualified for the examinations were they to beFheld on schedule for recruitment years 2020 and 2021 in termsof the rules as they then stood, may be permitted to appear forthe ensuing examinations. [Para 18][522-G-H; 523-A-D]

1.2 Having regard to the fact that the recruitmentexamination for DJS has been last held in 2019 and two recruitmentGyears have elapsed in the meantime, this Court observed thatthe suggestion of the High Court should be accepted for thisyear. The consequence of the acceptance of the suggestion bythis Court, would be that candidates who would have fulfilled the H

upper age limit of 32 years, for the recruitment years 2020 and2021 would be eligible to participate in the examination for theensuing recruitment year 2022. The age bar which they wouldnow encounter is not of their own volition. The real element ofhardship faced by such candidates has been remedied by the HighCourt and there is no reason for this court not to accept thesuggestion. The examination cannot however, be postponedindefinitely nor can the candidates who have applied be left in astate of uncertainty. The existing candidates can have nogrievance by the widening of the competition. In order to facilitatethis exercise, the suggestion of the High Court that the last datefor the receipt of application forms shall be extended to 3 April2022 and the examination shall be held on 24 April 2022 isaccepted. This court directed that no impediment shall be causedin the conduct of the examination and no court shall issue anyorder of stay at variance with or contrary to the above directionsof this Court. [Para 19][523-D-H]

2. In regard to the DHJS examination, the submission ofthe appellants, to the effect that the prescription of a minimumage would be contrary to the constitutional provision containedin Article 233 of the Constitution, cannot be accepted. Article233(2) of the Constitution stipulates that a person not alreadyin the service of the Union or of a State shall only be eligible tobe appointed a District Judge if he has been, for not less than 7years, an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by theHigh Court for appointment. Clause (1) of Article 233 stipulatesthat appointments of persons, posting and promotion of DistrictJudges shall be made by the Governor of the State inconsultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction inrelation to the State. Article 235 entrusts to the High Courtcontrol over the district courts and courts subordinate theretoincluding the posting and promotion of and the grant of leave topersons belonging to the judicial service to the State and holdingany post inferior to the post of District Judge. The Constitutionhas prescribed the requirement to the effect that a person shallbe eligible for appointment as a District Judge only if he hasbeen an advocate or a pleader for at least seven years. What AB

C

D

E

F

G

AB

C

D

E

F

G

Athis means is that a person who has not fulfilled the seven yearnorm is not eligible. The Constitution does not preclude theexercise of the rule making power by the High Courts to regulatethe conditions of service or appointment. The silences of theConstitution have to be and are supplemented by thoseentrusted with the duty to apply its provisions. The ConstitutionBbeing silent in regard to the prescription of a minimum age, theHigh Courts in the exercise of their rule making authority areentitled to prescribe such a requirement. Direct recruitment tothe Higher Judicial Service is intended to be from members ofthe Bar who have sufficient experience. The post of a DistrictCJudge is at a senior level in the cadre. Age is not extraneous tothe acquisition of maturity and experience, especially in judicialinstitutions which handle real problems and confront challengesto liberty and justice. The High Courts are well within theirdomain in prescribing a requirement which ensures thatcandidates with sufficient maturity enter the fold of the higherDjudiciary. The requirement that a candidate should be at least35 years of age is intended to sub-serve this. Except for a shortperiod when the requirement of a minimum age of thirty fivewas deleted, the Delhi High Court has followed the norm. Thedeletion of the minimum age requirement of 35 years in 2019Emay have been guided by the need to attract a larger pool ofapplicants to DHJS. But the reinstatement of a minimum agerequirement of 35 years is a matter of policy. This conforms tothe recommendation of the Shetty Commission. Hence, thereis no valid basis to hold that the requirement that a candidatefor the DHJS should be at least thirty-five years of age is invalid.F[Paras 26, 27][525-F-H; 526-A-F, H; 527-A-B]

Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. Uttar Pradesh PublicService Commission (2008) 17 SCC 703; All IndiaJudges Association v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC274; All India Judges Association v. Union of IndiaG(2002) 4 SCC 247 : [2002] 2 SCR 712; HirandraKumar v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (2020)17 SCC 401 : [2019] 2 SCR 608 – referred to.

A

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2016Of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 08.03.2022 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.3914 of 2022.

C

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 2017-2020 of 2022.

A. D. N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Gautam Narayan, Advs. for the Appellant.

D

Devadatt Kamat, Ms. Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, Ms. AnithaShenoy, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Advs., Rajesh Inamdar, Pai Amit,Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Ms. Ripul Swati, Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar,Karan Dalal, Suryavir, Aditya Kapoor, Ms. Manika Goswamy, Ms.Medha Tondon, Deepkaran Dalal, Vivek Singh, Namit Saxena, ManishRohilla, Advs. for the Respondent.

E

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

F

2. These appeals arise from orders of a Division Bench of theHigh Court of Delhi dated 4 March 2022 and 8 March 2022. The petitionsbefore the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution have raisedissues pertaining to the validity of:

(i) The upper age limit of 32 years for appearing for the DelhiJudicial Service[1] examination; andG

(ii) The minimum age requirement of 35 years for appearingfor the Delhi Higher Judicial Service[2] examination.

1 “DJS”

2 “DHJS”

H

3. The High Court of Delhi issued notifications for conducting theexaminations for DJS and DHJS on 23 February 2022. For the DJS, thelast date for submission of forms is 20 March 2022 and the examinationis scheduled to take place on 27 March 2022. For DHJS, the last datefor submission of forms was 12 March 2022 while the date of theexamination is 20 March 2022.

A

B

4. The bone of contention pertains to Rule 14(c) of the DelhiJudicial Service Rules 1970. Un-amended Rule 14(c) stipulated that acandidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination if he is not morethan 32 years of age on the 1[st] day of January following the date ofcommencement of the examination. The above rule was amended on 11CFebruary 2022 so as to stipulate that a candidate shall be eligible toappear at the examination if he is not more than 32 years of age on the1[st] day of January of the year in which the applications for appointmentare invited. The High Court of Delhi conducted the last examination forrecruitment to the DJS in 2019. It is common ground that no examinationDwas held in 2020 for institutional reasons and in 2021 due to the onset ofthe Covid-19 pandemic.

5. The grievance of the petitioners before the High Court is thatcandidates who would have qualified in terms of the upper age limit of32 years for DJS, as stipulated in Rule 14(c), would now cease to beEeligible by virtue of the fact that the examination is being held in March2022. In terms of amended Rule 14(c) they would have crossed the ageof 32 years on the 1[st] day of January of the year in which the applicationsfor appointment are invited. In other words, it has been urged that if theHigh Court had conducted the examination on schedule in 2020 and2021, such candidates would have qualified for the examination sinceFthey were within the age limit of 32 years for the relevant year.

E

6 . When the petition was moved before the High Court, theDivision Bench by its interim order dated 8 march 2022 directed that thedate for receiving applications shall be rescheduled to a date after thenext date of hearing and the date of holding the examination shall also bepostponed. The proceedings were directed to be listed on 7 April 2022before the same Bench which was seized of an earlier writ petition, WritPetition (Civil) No 3636 of 2022 after obtaining the orders of the ChiefJustice. Effectively therefore, by the interim order of the High Court,the examination for DJS which was scheduled to take place on 27 March2022 would stand postponed.

G

H

7. Aggrieved by the interim order of the High Court, the jurisdictionof this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution has been invoked bythe High Court of Delhi on the administrative side.

8. The earlier petition before the High Court related to therecruitment process for DHJS which resulted in an interim order of theDivision Bench dated 4 March 2022. The backdrop of the grievancebefore the High Court was that in 2019, the High Court had amendedthe DHJS Rules by a notification dated 26 December 2019. Rule 9(3)specifies the qualifications for direct recruits. The requirement of aminimum age of 35 years was deleted by the notification of the HighCourt dated 26 December 2019. Subsequently, by a notification dated 8February 2022, Rule 9(3) was amended so as to stipulate the requirementthat the candidate must have attained the age of 35 years. Rule 9(3) alsoprovides that the candidate should not have attained the age of 45 yearson the 1[st] day of January of the year in which the applications forappointment are invited. The submission is that under Article 233 of theConstitution, the only qualification for being appointed as a District Judgeis continuous practice of seven years as an advocate or a pleader. Hence,the submission is that though the Constitution does not prescribe aminimum age limit for appointment as a District Judge, Rule 9(3)introduces such a requirement which would be in breach of theconstitutional requirement.

9. The High Court by its interim order dated 4 March 2022 heldthat since the minimum age limit had been reintroduced after a hiatus oftwo years, the matter would require consideration. While directing thatthe petition should be listed on 7 April 2022, the High Court has directedthat the date for filling up the online application forms should be extendedbeyond the next date of hearing. Effectively, as a consequence of theinterim order of the High Court, the examination which was scheduledto be held on 20 March 2022 would stand postponed. The High Court onits administrative side is before this Court in proceedings under Article136 of the Constitution.

10. On 11 March 2022, while issuing notice in the Special LeavePetition[3] relating to the DJS examination, this Court passed the followingorder:

3 SLP (C) No 4452 of 2022

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioneras also the respondent, who has appeared in person.Issue notice.

The respondent, who appeared in person, accepts notice. Therespondent is directed to file her response by 12.03.2022.

B

The respondent claims that because of pandemic, she did not haveopportunity to appear in the Delhi Judicial Services Examinationfor the last two years. She, accordingly, prays that as she hasCcrossed the prescribed age limit of 32 years in the process, shemay be permitted to appear in the present examination.

However, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner submits that approximately 5,700 candidates have appliedfor the said examination and the time schedule has already beenfixed for the same.

D

Taking into consideration the fact that the time schedule of theabove-mentioned examination has already been fixed by the DelhiHigh Court, we deem it appropriate to hear the matter and disposeof the same in accordance with law without stalling theexamination process.

E

However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstancesof the instant case, we permit the respondent to submit herapplication for the aforesaid examination which shall remain subjectto the outcome of this petition.

FList the matter on 14.03.2022.

The petitioner is directed to supply a copy of the petition to therespondent-in-person immediately.”

11. Likewise, while entertaining the Special Leave Petitions[4]pertaining to the DHJS examination, this Court passed the followingGorder on 11 March 2022:

“The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

H4 SLP (C) Nos 4432-4435 of 2022

Issue notice.

Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

It is noted that the respondents who preferred writ petitions beforethe High Court have not submitted any application for the DelhiHigher Judicial Services Examination, which is going to beconducted on 20.03.2022. The respondents moved the Delhi HighCourt straightway for relaxation of their age to appear in the above-mentioned examination. The High Court while issuing notice,directed to extend the date for filling up the online applicationform beyond the next date of hearing i.e. 07.04.2022.

Having heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner and taking into consideration the fact that already morethan 1200 applications have been received for the aforesaidexamination, we are prima facie of the view that it is not appropriateto extend the time limit which was prescribed.

Hence, we direct the learned senior counsel for the petitioner toinform the respondents through mobile phone or e-mail to submittheir applications within the time limit prescribed by the High Court i.e. 12.03.2022, which shall, however, remain subjectto the outcome of these petitions. Learned senior counsel is furtherdirected to inform the counsel for the respondents about the instantorder also.

List these matters on 14.03.2022.”

12. Following the interim order of this Court, the petitioners beforethe High Court have appeared through learned counsel. In addition, thisCourt is also seized of a number of intervention applications by personswho are not before the High Court, but claim the benefit of the directionscontained in the interim orders dated 11 March 2022.

13. We have heard Mr A D N Rao, learned senior counselappearing on behalf of the High Court of Delhi. On behalf of therespondents and the intervenors, we have heard Mr Devadatt Kamatand Mr Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, learned senior counsel. The intervenorshave been represented in these proceedings by Mr Sidharth Luthra, MsAnitha Shenoy and Mr Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned senior counseland Mr Aditya Singh, Mr Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, Mr Ranjan NikhilDharnidhar and Mr Deepkaran Dalal, learned counsel. Mr Anuj Sharma,one of the intervenors has also appeared in-person.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2022] 2 S.C.R.

A14. We would deal with the issues pertaining to DJS and DHJSseparately.

15. In order to enable the Court to render a full and completeadjudication of the proceedings, the writ petitions[5] before the High Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution stand transferred to this Court. WeBhave had the benefit of the submissions urged on both the sides.

16. At the outset, Mr A D N Rao, learned senior counsel appearingon behalf of the High Court of Delhi has stated that the High Court didnot conduct the examination which was scheduled to be held in 2020and in 2021 for DJS. The examination for 2020 could not be held forCprocedural reasons since the process for the earlier recruitment year,2019, had not been completed. As regards the examination for 2021, ithas been stated by the learned senior counsel that the examination wasnot held due to the onset of the Covid -19 pandemic. In this backdrop,learned senior counsel submitted that candidates who would otherwisequalify in terms of the upper age limit of 32 years if the exams were heldDin 2020 and 2021, would now become age barred since the examinationis being held pursuant to the notification which was issued on 23 February2022.

17. Having regard to the above situation, it has been submitted byMr A D N Rao that this Court may, particularly having regard to theEinterim order dated 11 March 2022, grant the same benefit to allcandidates, who would have qualified for the examination, had theexamination been conducted in 2020 and 2021 on the basis of the rulesas they then stood. In order to effectuate this, it has been submitted onbehalf of the High Court of Delhi that the last date for the acceptance of Fapplications may be suitably postponed by this Court, with the consequencethat the dates for the examination may be rescheduled. The High Courthas stated that if this Court were to accept the suggestion, acommunication would be uploaded on the website of the High Court forthe intimation of all prospective applicants so that candidates who wouldhave been eligible during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 may beGconsidered for the ensuing process as a one-on time measure.18. The time schedule for conducting the recruitment process tothe judicial service has been stipulated by the judgment of this Court in 5 WP (C) No 3914 of 2022 & WP (C) Nos 3636/2020, 3650/2022, 3665/2022 & 3684/H2022

Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) vs Uttar Pradesh Public ServiceCommission[6]. The object and purpose of the directions of this Courthas been to ensure that the recruitment process for the judicial service isconducted on schedule every year, subject to the rules of each HighCourt. The High Court of Delhi held its last examination for recruitmentto DJS in 2019. Admittedly, no examination has been held in 2020 or in2021. The examination for 2020 could not be conducted since the processfor 2019 was still to be completed. The examination for 2020 could notbe held due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this backdrop,since the examination was not conducted for two recruitment years, theHigh Court has after considering the issue stated before this Courtthrough the learned senior counsel that as a one-time measure, this Courtmay accept the suggestion that candidates who would have qualified forthe examinations were they to be held on schedule for recruitment years2020 and 2021 in terms of the rules as they then stood, may be permittedto appear for the ensuing examinations.

19. Having regard to the fact that the recruitment examination forDJS has been last held in 2019 and two recruitment years have elapsedin the meantime, we are of the view that the suggestion of the HighCourt should be accepted for this year. The consequence of theacceptance of the suggestion by this Court, would be that candidateswho would have fulfilled the upper age limit of 32 years, for therecruitment years 2020 and 2021 would be eligible to participate in theexamination for the ensuing recruitment year 2022. The age bar whichthey would now encounter is not of their own volition. The real elementof hardship faced by such candidates has been remedied by the HighCourt and there is no reason for this court not to accept the suggestion.The examination cannot however, be postponed indefinitely nor can thecandidates who have applied be left in a state of uncertainty. The existingcandidates can have no grievance by the widening of the competition. Inorder to facilitate this exercise, we accept the suggestion of the HighCourt that the last date for the receipt of application forms shall beextended to 3 April 2022 and the examination shall be held on 24 April2022. We direct that no impediment shall be caused in the conduct of theexamination and no court shall issue any order of stay at variance withor contrary to the above directions of this Court.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

524SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A20. A communication of the modified dates in the above termsshall be placed on the website of the High Court of Delhi.

Delhi Higher Judicial Service

21. The challenge before the High Court in the writ petitions[7]pertains to the determination of a minimum age requirement of 35 yearsBfor appearing for the Higher Judicial Service. Mr Amarjit Singh Chandhiok,learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners before theHigh Court submits that:

(i) Article 233 of the Constitution does not contain anyrequirement of a minimum age and the only requirement isCthat in order to qualify for appointment as District Judge, aperson should have been an advocate or a pleader for notless than 7 years;

(ii) No minimum age requirement is specified for appointmentto the judicial service as a consequence of which, candidatesDwho complete 10 years of service in the judicial servicewould be eligible for being appointed to the Higher JudicialService before they attain the age of thirty five;

(iii) The High Court itself had removed the minimum agerequirement of 35 years in 2019 which has been reintroducedEin February 2022; and

(iv) Persons, such as the petitioners before the High Court shouldtherefore be given an opportunity of appearing for theexaminations for the reason that until the rules weremodified in February 2022, they would have been eligibleFto appear for the examination if it was held at the materialtime in 2020 and 2021.

22. The submission which has been urged by Mr Chandhiok,learned senior counsel has been also adopted by Mr Sidharth Luthra,Ms Anitha Shenoy and Mr Dama Seshadiri Naidu, learned senior counselGas well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenors and theintervenor in-person.

23. Mr A D N Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf ofthe High Court has opposed the submission.

H7 WP (C) Nos 3636/2020, 3650/2022, 3665/2022 & 3684/2022

HIGH COURT OF DELHI v. DEVINA SHARMA[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

24. In order to consider the tenability of the submission, it must benoted at the outset that the First National Judicial Pay Commission,commonly known as the Shetty Commission, recommended theintroduction of the requirement that for direct recruitment to the cadreof District Judges, candidates should be between the age of 35 and 45years with an upper age relaxation of three years for SC/ST candidates.Paragraph 10.93 of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission isextracted below:

“…we recommend that the candidates for direct recruitment tothe cadre of District Judges should be between 35 and 45 yearsand the upper age may be relaxed by 3 years for SC/STcandidates.”

25. The recommendations of the Shetty Commission were initiallyfollowed by an order of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in All IndiaJudges Association vs Union of India[8]. By the order of this Court, theStates and the Union Territories to whom a copy of the report had beensubmitted were directed to submit their responses to the Union of Indiaexpeditiously. Eventually, the report of the Shetty Commission resultedin the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in All India JudgesAssociation vs Union of India[9]. The rules of several High Courts providethat for recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service, the candidate shouldbe of a minimum age of 35, with a maximum age limit of 45 years. Forinstance, the rules pertaining to the UP Higher Judicial Service werenoticed in a decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in HirandraKumar vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad[10]. The prescriptionof a rule providing for a minimum age requirement or maximum age forentry into service is essentially a matter of policy. After noticing theearlier precedents on the subject, this Court in Hirandra Kumar (supra)observed that the determination of cut-offs lies in the realm of policy.

26 . The submission of the appellants, to the effect that theprescription of a minimum age would be contrary to the constitutionalprovision contained in Article 233 of the Constitution, cannot be accepted.Article 233(2) of the Constitution stipulates that a person not already inthe service of the Union or of a State shall only be eligible to be appointeda District Judge if he has been, for not less than 7 years, an advocate or 8 (2002) 4 SCC 274

9 (2002) 4 SCC 247

10 (2020) 17 SCC 401 (“Hirandra Kumar”)

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aa pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment. Clause(1) of Article 233 stipulates that appointments of persons, posting andpromotion of District Judges shall be made by the Governor of the Statein consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation tothe State. Article 235 entrusts to the High Court control over the districtcourts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotionBof and the grant of leave to persons belonging to the judicial service tothe State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge. TheConstitution has prescribed the requirement to the effect that a personshall be eligible for appointment as a District Judge only if he has beenan advocate or a pleader for at least seven years. What this means isCthat a person who has not fulfilled the seven year norm is not eligible.The Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule making powerby the High Courts to regulate the conditions of service or appointment.The silences of the Constitution have to be and are supplemented bythose entrusted with the duty to apply its provisions. The Constitutionbeing silent in regard to the prescription of a minimum age, the HighDCourts in the exercise of their rule making authority are entitled toprescribe such a requirement. Direct recruitment to the Higher JudicialService is intended to be from members of the Bar who have sufficientexperience. The post of a District Judge is at a senior level in the cadre.Age is not extraneous to the acquisition of maturity and experience,Eespecially in judicial institutions which handle real problems and confrontchallenges to liberty and justice. The High Courts are well within theirdomain in prescribing a requirement which ensures that candidates withsufficient maturity enter the fold of the higher judiciary. The requirementthat a candidate should be at least 35 years of age is intended to sub-servethis. Except for a short period when the requirement of a minimum age ofFthirty-five was deleted, the Delhi High Court has followed the norm.

27. In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is no meritin the submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitionersbefore the High Court and the intervenors who have not fulfilled the age requirement of 35 years. Though for a short period of about a year, theGHigh Court had deleted the requirement of a minimum age of 35 yearsfor entry into the Higher Judicial Service, the High Court has set rightthe rule so as to bring it into conformity with the recommendations of theShetty Commission. The deletion of the minimum age requirement of 35years in 2019 may have been guided by the need to attract a larger poolHof applicants to DHJS. But the reinstatement of a minimum age requirement of 35 years is a matter of policy. This conforms to therecommendation of the Shetty Commission. Hence, there is no validbasis for this court to hold that the requirement that a candidate for theDHJS should be at least thirty-five years of age is invalid. We do notfind any merit in the challenge which has been urged on behalf of theappellants to that extent.

28. During the course of the hearing, this Court has been apprisedof the fact that several applicants for the higher judicial serviceexamination would have qualified in terms of the upper age limit of 45years in 2020 or, as the case may be, 2021. As a matter of fact, Mr A DN Rao indicates that he has instructions to the effect that some of thosecandidates may already have or would be in the process of movingpetitions before the High Court. The reasons which have weighed withthis Court in allowing the High Court, as a one-time measure, to permitcandidates for the DJS examination who had qualified in terms of theupper age limit of 32 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021,should on a parity of reasoning be extended to candidates for the DHJSexamination who would have qualified in terms of the upper age limit of45 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 during which noexaminations could take place for the reasons which have been noticedearlier.

29. In order to obviate any further litigation and uncertainty, wepermit the High Court as a one-time measure to allow those candidateswho were within the age cut-off of 45 years during the recruitmentyears 2020 and 2021 to participate in the ensuing DHJS examinations.

30. For the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, the last date for thereceipt of applications shall stand extended to 26 March 2022 while theexamination shall be held on 3 April 2022, in those terms as stated beforethis court by senior counsel representing the High Court.

31. The High Court of Delhi shall upload a corrigendum indicatingthe above relaxation on its website.

32. The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms. The writpetitions before the High shall stand disposed of.

33. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Appeals partly allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H