PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner applied for the post in the Cadre of District Jude in pursuance of Notification dated 19.07.2011.(Annexure-3). His application form was disallowed under Rule 33 of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010(for short 'the Rules of 2010'). Being aggrieved with the same, he has preferred present writ petition, challenging the condition No. 4(underlined below) of the Notification dated 19.07.2011, which reads as under:

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that his date of birth is 30.12.1966. He was enrolled as an Advocate on 20.01.1994. The process for appointment in the Cadre of District Judge was initiated vide Notification dated 15.04.2010 issued by Rajasthan High Court. The examination in pursuance of Notification dated 15.04.2010 was cancelled on 22.09.2010, therefore, in view of proviso (b) of Rule 33(i) of the Rules of 2010, he was entitled for relaxation in age, as he was within age limit as on 01.01.2011, but the benefit of proviso (b) of Rule 33(i) of the Rules of 2010 has been given only to those candidates, who had appeared in the examination of 2010 for direct recruitment to the District Judge Cadre, provided they submit photocopy of admit card or furnish details/particulars about their appearance in the previous examination. He has submitted that since examination in pursuance of Notification dated 15.04.2010 had already been cancelled, therefore, age relaxation should have been provided to all candidates treating that no such examination was held in the year 2010. For ready reference, the Proviso (b) to Rule 33(i) of the Rules of 2010 is reproduced as under: