- (1.) THE petitioners, who have been appointed as Prosecuting Officers Jaunpur and Shahjahanpur, have filed this petition for a direction upon the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear at the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Examination -2014 by accepting their forms.
(2.) AN advertisement was issued in the year 2007 for direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. The petitioners were not found eligible for the post as they had been appointed as Prosecuting Officers. The petitioners and some others similarly situated persons filed writ petitions in this Court to challenge the decision that had been taken not to consider the petitioners as eligible. These writ petitions were ultimately disposed of with the observation that those petitioners who were enrolled as Advocates and had practiced as such for seven years were eligible to appear in Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Examination and they cannot be disqualified only on the ground that they had been appointed as Assistant Prosecuting Officers. Accordingly, the circular dated 26 April 2007 issued by the Registrar General was quashed. In Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.17201 -17213/2007 filed by the High Court to assail this decision, the Supreme Court on 28 September 2007 issued notices and in the meantime stayed the operation of the order of the High Court. The aforesaid Special Leave Petitions were ultimately disposed of on 21 February 2014 in terms of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Aggarwal .
(3.) AN advertisement inviting applications for direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service has now been issued in 2014. The advertisement requires that the Advocates of not less than seven years standing as on 1 January 2015 who must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years as on 1 January 2015 can apply. It also provides that the age limit shall be higher by three years in case of SC/ST/OBC candidates belonging to the State of Uttar Pradesh only. All the petitioners are admittedly more than 45 years of age as on 1 January 2015 and, therefore, are not eligible to be considered for appointment under the said advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in Sanjay Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., 2007 3 UPLBEC 2558, a Division Bench of this Court held that persons who have been enrolled as Advocates and have practiced as such for seven years are eligible to appear in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Examination and cannot be disqualified only on the ground that they are continuing as Assistant Prosecuting Officers but as this judgment of the Division Bench of High Court was stayed by the Supreme Court in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal on 28 September 2007, which interim order continued to operate till the petitions were disposed of on 21 February 2014, one opportunity should at least be given to the petitioners to appear in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Examination 2014 even if they would be more than 45 years as on 1 January 2015 since they had been illegally denied an opportunity to appear at the earlier examinations when they were less than 45 years of age. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel submitted that the decision not to permit the petitioners to appear in the 2007 Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Examination cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of this Court in Sanjay Agarwal and the petitioners did not apply pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2012 when they were eligible because the Special Leave Petitions were pending in the Supreme Court in which an interim order had been granted staying the operation of the judgment rendered in Sanjay Agarwal . Subsequently, the Special Leave Petitions were disposed of in the light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Aggarwal in which it was held that Assistant Public Prosecutors or Government Advocates on the rolls of State Bar Council are entitled to practice under the Advocates Act, 1971 and as such are eligible as they are covered by the expression 'Advocate'. It is, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that at least one opportunity should be provided to the petitioners for appearing in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Examination even if they are more than 45 years of age as on 1 January 2015 since they could not have applied earlier when they were eligible.;