- (1.) The petitioner who is a practicing advocate appeared in the U.P. Judicial Service Examinations for recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in 2003, 2006, 2012 and 2013. In each of those attempts, he was unsuccessful. In these proceedings, the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the third proviso to Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 20011. Rule 10 provides as follows: "10. Age.--A candidate for direct recruitment to the service must have attained the age of 22 years and must not have attained the age of more than 35 years on the first day of January next following the year in which the notification for holding the examination by the Commission inviting applications, is published : Provided that the upper age limit shall be higher by five years in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and such other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time : Provided further that where a candidate was eligible in age to appear at the examination in any year of recruitment in which no such examination was held, he shall be deemed to be eligible in age to appear in the next following examination : Provided also that the maximum number of chances a candidate is permitted to take will be four."
(2.) The submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner who claims to belong to the scheduled caste category is that the restriction on the maximum number of four chances to appear in the examination cannot be enforced having due regard to the provisions of Rule 38. Rule 38 provides as follows: "38. Savings.--Nothing in these rules shall affect any order passed under the Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Seva Niyamawali, 1951 or reservations and other concessions required to be provided for the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other special categories of person in accordance with the orders of the Government issued from time to time in this regard."
(3.) The submission is that there was no provision restricting the number of chances in the earlier Rules of 19512 and Rule 11 which specified age requirements (which corresponds to present Rule 10 of Rules of 2001) did not contain a provision analogous to the fourth proviso. Hence, it is urged that in the absence of such a restriction in the Rules of 1951 the same benefit must enure to the petitioner by virtue of Rule 38.;