MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN Vs. U P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
LAWS(SC)-2006-4-89
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 03,2006

MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN Appellant
VERSUS
U.P.PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

Sanjeev Kumar Sahay VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2008-4-86] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPTHI BHAVA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-123] [REFERRED TO]
Y D SHUKLA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF M P AT JABALPUR [LAWS(MPH)-2008-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU BAHUGUNA VS. UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(UTN)-2020-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. MAHENDRA KUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
K.K.SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-53] [REFERRED TO]
Manoj Kumar and others VS. State of U.P. and others [LAWS(ALL)-2010-3-190] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND BIHARI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-160] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-8-357] [REFERRED]
SATARUPA GHOSH VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR SAHOO VS. REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) [LAWS(ORI)-2012-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
DIVYA GOYAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2014-10-64] [REFERRED TO]
MEHRAJ UD DIN MIR VS. STATE OF J AND K [LAWS(J&K)-2021-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
P ELANGO VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-368] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN SINGH CHOUDHARY VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-1-156] [REFERRED TO]
PRITHVI SINGH RAJVI VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
JIVRAKHAN LAL VERMA, S/O SHRI BHULAU RAM VERMA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-2-72] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDRA NATH TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-146] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR & ANR VS. HONBLE REGISTAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-505] [REFERRED TO]
KANWALJIT SINGH BAJWA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-3-267] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MANIPUR VS. YAIPHABA LAIPHRAKPAM [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR GALAV VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-10-175] [REFERRED]
RAHUL VERMA VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION [LAWS(HPH)-2020-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. SATYENDRA KUMAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-1-155] [REFERRED TO]
GODAWARI PATEL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-8-52] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA A GHODASARA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-2-134] [REFERRED TO]
WAHID HUSAIN VS. PRACHARYA ZILA SHIKSHA AUR PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-9-202] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR PATHAK VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-203] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. UZAIR IMRAN [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-30] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2011-5-365] [REFERRED]
DHIRINDER CHOPRA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-12-101] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISION VS. ARVIND SINGH CHAUHAN [LAWS(SC)-2009-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
JAVID AHMAD MIR VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
GADHVI BHIKHABHAI BHARAMALBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-1-310] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-6-64] [REFERRED TO]
BRAHMBHATT HITESHKUMAR GHANSHYAMBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA KUMAR RAI AND 24 ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-270] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN KUMAR AND ANR VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE MADHUKAR PAKNIKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-97] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN CHAND SHRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-4-137] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. HONOURABLE HIGH COURT FOR JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2021-11-103] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
PREM RATAN MODI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-4-2] [REFERRED]
BALESHWAR PRASAD RAJAK S/O SRI KRISHNA RAJAK VS. STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY [LAWS(PAT)-2009-2-170] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. DR. BANSILAL JAKHAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHAL KISHORE VERMA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
TARIK DOKE VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2007-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
PAWANDEEP SINGH DHALIWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-7-306] [REFERRED]
SUDHANSH SHARMA VS. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY AGRWAL VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2007-6-68] [REFERRED]
KULDEEP VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-201] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-163] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. ABINASH KUMAR MAHTO [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-8-173] [REFERRED TO]
DIWAKAR MAHTO VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-2-212] [REFERRED TO]
PRANAB DAS AND ANR VS. ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2018-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA SHROFF VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH SHARMA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
T.LOKACHARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMAN PURI VS. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-5-50] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRINDER CHOPRA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2013-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHANDRA VERMA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR BANSAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2013-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR SINGH VS. HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2023-1-89] [REFERRED TO]
R. EASKI DURAI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-11-166] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA BHURIYAQ VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV PRASHAR VS. NARESH DUBEY AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-318] [REFERRED]
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. VS. SHAMBHU MAHTO AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-1-80] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. SHIV BACHAN KUMAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-1-180] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
PARMESHWAR YADAV VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-12-123] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV RANJAN MISRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-110] [REFERRED TO]
UDAYAN K K VS. KERALA AGRO MECHINERY CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(KER)-2011-4-107] [REFERRED TO]
DIPANKAR PAUL VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK GOYAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEET SINGH VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
SAPNA SAWHNEY SRIVASTAVA VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
NISHA DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-227] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The main question to be determined in these matters, which relates to the recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under U.P Judicial Service Rules 2001 (for short 'the Rules'), is as to the eligibility of some candidates from the point of view of age. The High Court by the impugned judgment has held only those candidates eligible who were of requisite age as on 1st July, 2003. Is the High Court right in its conclusion or 1st July, 2001 or 1st July, 2002 is the relevant date for determining the age as a condition of eligibility as contended on behalf of those candidates who stand excluded as a result of the impugned judgment The other viewpoint urged is that even 1st July, 2003 held by High Court as a date for determining eligibility of age is wrong and on correct interpretation of the Rules, the relevant date for determining age is 1st July, 2004. The circumstances giving rise to these issues may first be stated.
(3.)The U.P. Public Service Commission (for short 'PSC') was informed by letter of Government of U.P. dated 23rd November, 2002 that it has been decided to make appointment of 347 candidates on the basis of competitive examination for recruitment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2002 in U.P. Judicial Service in three phases of 100 + 100 + 147 candidates. The PSC was requested to take prompt action and after completion of selection, send its recommendations to the Government by 31st March, 2003. By another requisition dated 29th July, 2003 the Government informed PSC that the recruitment be conducted in two phases, first for 174 posts and later for 173 posts in second phase for which another requisition will be sent. By this requisition PSC was asked to advertise 174 posts in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules as amended. The Rules had been earlier amended by the Government in terms of its Notification dated 19th March, 2003 whereby the existing requirement of the requisite age as on '1st day of January' was substituted by '1st day of July'.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.