Supreme Court permits age relaxation for Delhi Judicial Services Exam: High Court of Delhi vs. Devina Sharma (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2022

Citation: Civil Appeal No 2016 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 4452 of 2022)

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, A S Bopanna, J, Hima Kohli, J

Can candidates who missed judicial service exams due to administrative delays and the Covid-19 pandemic get age relaxation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue, focusing on the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) and Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) exams. The Court considered the fairness of age criteria and the impact of delayed exams on candidates’ eligibility. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, A S Bopanna, J, and Hima Kohli, J, with the opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The High Court of Delhi issued notifications on 23 February 2022, for the DJS and DHJS exams. The DJS exam had a last date for form submission on 20 March 2022, and the exam was scheduled for 27 March 2022. The DHJS exam’s last date was 12 March 2022, with the exam on 20 March 2022. The core issue was Rule 14(c) of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970, which initially stated that a candidate must be under 32 years of age on 1 January following the exam date. This was amended on 11 February 2022, to state that the age should be under 32 years on 1 January of the year applications are invited. The last DJS exam was in 2019, with no exams in 2020 (due to pending 2019 process) and 2021 (due to Covid-19). Petitioners argued that candidates eligible under the old rule would now be ineligible due to the delayed exams and the amended rule. The High Court also amended the DHJS rules, reintroducing a minimum age of 35 years, which had been removed in 2019.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970, specifically Rule 14(c), which deals with the age eligibility for the DJS exam, and Rule 9(3) for DHJS. The Supreme Court also considered Article 233 of the Constitution of India, which specifies the qualifications for appointment as a District Judge, mentioning that a person should have been an advocate or a pleader for not less than 7 years. The Court noted that while the Constitution specifies this minimum practice period, it does not prescribe a minimum age limit. The Court also considered Article 235 of the Constitution, which entrusts to the High Court control over the district courts and courts subordinate thereto.

Relevant provisions include:

• Rule 14(c) of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970:
  • Un-amended Rule 14(c) stipulated that a candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination if he is not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January following the date of commencement of the examination.
  • Amended Rule 14(c) stipulated that a candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination if he is not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited.
• Rule 9(3) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules:
  • Rule 9(3) specifies the qualifications for direct recruits. The requirement of a minimum age of 35 years was deleted by the notification of the High Court dated 26 December 2019. Subsequently, by a notification dated 8 February 2022, Rule 9(3) was amended so as to stipulate the requirement that the candidate must have attained the age of 35 years.
• Article 233 of the Constitution of India:
  • Article 233(2) of the Constitution stipulates that a person not already in the service of the Union or of a State shall only be eligible to be appointed a District Judge if he has been, for not less than 7 years, an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.
• Article 235 of the Constitution of India:
  • Article 235 entrusts to the High Court control over the district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of and the grant of leave to persons belonging to the judicial service to the State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge.

The Court also referred to the recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission), which suggested that candidates for direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judges should be between 35 and 45 years of age.

Arguments

For the Petitioners (Candidates):

• Candidates argued that the change in the age calculation for DJS eligibility, from the year following the exam to the year of application, unfairly disadvantaged those who would have been eligible had the exams been held on schedule in 2020 and 2021.
• They contended that the minimum age requirement of 35 years for DHJS, reintroduced in February 2022, was unconstitutional as Article 233 of the Constitution only specifies a minimum practice period of seven years as an advocate or pleader.
• It was further argued that the High Court itself had removed the minimum age requirement of 35 years in 2019, and hence, the candidates should be given an opportunity to appear for the DHJS examination.
• They argued that candidates who completed 10 years of service in the judicial service would be eligible for being appointed to the Higher Judicial Service before they attain the age of thirty-five.

For the Respondent (High Court of Delhi):

• The High Court acknowledged that the DJS exams were not held in 2020 and 2021 due to procedural reasons and the pandemic, respectively.
• The High Court suggested that candidates who would have qualified for the DJS exam in 2020 and 2021, based on the rules at the time, should be allowed to appear for the 2022 exam as a one-time measure.
• The High Court argued that the prescription of a minimum age requirement or maximum age for entry into service is essentially a matter of policy.
• The High Court contended that the Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule making power by the High Courts to regulate the conditions of service or appointment.
• It was argued that the High Court was within its domain to prescribe a minimum age to ensure that candidates with sufficient maturity enter the higher judiciary.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in amending Rule 14(c) of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970, thereby changing the age calculation for DJS eligibility.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in reintroducing the minimum age requirement of 35 years for the DHJS.
3. Whether candidates who would have been eligible for the DJS and DHJS exams in 2020 and 2021 should be given age relaxation for the 2022 exams.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 233 of the Constitution of India: Qualifications for appointment as District Judge.
• Article 235 of the Constitution of India: High Court’s control over district courts.
• Rule 14(c) of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970: Age eligibility for DJS.
• Rule 9(3) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules: Age eligibility for DHJS.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Shetty Commission recommendations were followed by the Court in upholding the minimum age criteria for DHJS.
• The Court followed the principles laid down in Hirandra Kumar vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [(2020) 17 SCC 401]* that the determination of cut-offs lies in the realm of policy.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the administrative requirements of the High Court with the fairness and equity due to the candidates. The Court recognized the hardship faced by candidates due to the delays in conducting the exams and the subsequent changes in age criteria. The Court emphasized that the age bar encountered by the candidates was not of their own volition. The Court also considered the policy nature of setting age limits for judicial service and the need for candidates to have sufficient maturity. The Court sought to ensure that the recruitment process was fair and transparent, while also respecting the rule-making authority of the High Court. The Court also took into account that the examination cannot be postponed indefinitely nor can the candidates who have applied be left in a state of uncertainty.

The Court’s reasoning involved a mix of factual considerations (such as the delays in conducting exams) and legal principles (such as the High Court’s rule-making power and the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution). The Court’s focus was on ensuring that the candidates were not unfairly disadvantaged due to the administrative delays and changes in rules.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Amendment of Rule 14(c) for DJS

Issue 2: Reintroduction of minimum age for DHJS

Issue 3: Age relaxation for 2022 exams

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court allowed a one-time age relaxation for DJS and DHJS candidates who would have been eligible in 2020 and 2021.
• The Court upheld the High Court’s authority to set minimum age criteria for judicial service exams, emphasizing that it is a matter of policy.
• The judgment underscores the need for fairness and equity in the conduct of judicial service exams.
• The Court recognized the hardship faced by candidates due to administrative delays and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The last date for receipt of applications for the DJS exam was extended to 3 April 2022, and the exam was rescheduled for 24 April 2022.
• The last date for receipt of applications for the DHJS exam was extended to 26 March 2022, and the exam was rescheduled for 3 April 2022.
• The High Court of Delhi was directed to upload a corrigendum indicating the age relaxation on its website.
• No court shall issue any order of stay at variance with or contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while High Courts have the power to set age criteria for judicial service exams, they must also ensure fairness and equity, especially when delays occur due to administrative reasons or unforeseen circumstances. The Court clarified that the Constitution does not preclude the High Courts from prescribing a minimum age, but that power must be exercised reasonably and in the interest of justice. This case also reinforces the principle that candidates should not be disadvantaged due to delays not caused by their own actions. The Court has not changed the position of law but has clarified the position of law in the given facts and circumstances.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in High Court of Delhi vs. Devina Sharma provided a balanced approach, upholding the High Court’s rule-making authority while ensuring that candidates were not unfairly disadvantaged by delayed exams. The Court granted a one-time age relaxation for both DJS and DHJS candidates, acknowledging the hardship caused by administrative delays and the pandemic. The judgment reinforces the importance of fairness and equity in the conduct of judicial service exams.