- (1.) In the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the vires of Rule 11(c) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and Clause (c) of the notification dated 2.1.2012 (Annexure P1) issued by respondent No. 3 inviting applications for appointment to Haryana Superior Judicial Service by way of direct recruitment, in the State of Haryana, on the ground that in the impugned notification respondent No. 3 has prescribed different cut off dates for determining the eligibility with respect to the age and experience. Vide notification dated 2.1.2012, the applications were invited from candidates for filling up 14 posts in Haryana Superior Judicial Service by way of direct recruitment in the State of Haryana through competitive examination under Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules. According to the said notification, any person who fulfills the following conditions may apply to respondent No. 3 up to 31.1.2012:- (a) he/she must be a citizen of India; (b) he/she must have been duly enrolled as an Advocate and has practiced for a period not less than seven years as on the last date of submission of applications i.e. 31.1.2012; (c) he/she must have attained the age of thirty five years and must not have attained the age of forty five years as on 1st January, 2012 (in the case of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes, upper age limit is relaxable by five years); (d) he/she must not have more than one spouse living (Provided that the Governor may, if satisfied that there are special grounds for doing so, exempt any person from the operation of this sub-rule); (e) he/she must have passed matriculation examination with Hindi as one of the compulsory or elective subjects or any other equivalent examination in Hindi language, specified by the Government from time to time.
(2.) In response to the said advertisement, on 20.1.2012 the petitioner had submitted his Application Form with respondent No. 3, However, the petitioner whose date of birth is 14th January, 1977, is failing short by 13 days for attaining the prescribed age of thirty five years on 1st January, 2012 as required under Clause (c) of the aforesaid notification. The petitioner is under the impression that his Application Form may be rejected on the ground of not fulfilling the condition of requisite age, therefore, he has filed the instant petition challenging the vires of Rule 11(c) of the Rules and Clause (c) of the notification (Annexure P1). His grouse is that prescribing different cut off dates for different eligibility qualifications, i.e., age and experience, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 233 of the Constitution of India. It is contended by the petitioner that in the notification (Annexure P1) the cut off date for determining the experience of minimum seven years standing at the bar, has been fixed as 31.1.2012, whereas while determining the age eligibility of a candidate, the cut off date has been fixed as 1.1.2012. Hence Clause (c) of the notification dated 2.1.2012 as well as Rule 11(c) of the Rules are liable to be struck down, and respondent No. 3 be directed that the age eligibility should be taken from the last date of submission of Application Forms, i.e., 31.1.2012.
(3.) After hearing the petitioner, who appeared in person, we do not find any merit in the present petition or any illegality, arbitrariness or invalidity either in Clause (c) of the notification (Annexure P1) or Rule 11(c) of the Rules. Under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, the eligibility with respect to age has not been dealt with. Thus, by virtue of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with Article 233, the State of Haryana in consultation with the High Court has framed the rules regulating the eligibility and conditions for appointment on the posts of District Judges/Additional District Judges.;