Petitioners sought directions to amend Rule 17 of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules to enhance the upper age limit for in-service candidates to 45 years, claiming parity with other state services. The High Court held no such parity is permissible under the Constitution.
Writ petitions dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ No. 142/2019
Sheilesh Kumar Asopa S/o Shri Susheel Kumar Asopa, Aged About 41 Years, G-295, Azad Nagar Near Swastik Garden, Bhilwara, Rajasthan,.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 143/2019
Lalita Mandawariya D/o Shri Hira Lal Mandawariya, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Rajput Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 639/2019
Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Chandra Bhan, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste- Arora, R/o- Gali No-9, Setia Colony, Ward No-17, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
(2 of 5)
[CW-142/2019]
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 660/2019
Surendra Singh Kumpawat S/o Achal Singh, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Tehsil Marwar Junction, Dist. Pali (Raj.). At Present Assistant Prosecution Officer, Additional Judicial Magistrate Court, Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhawani Singh Tanwar For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
23rd January, 2019
(3 of 5)
[CW-142/2019]
(4 of 5) [CW-142/2019]
amendment made inter alia in Rule 17 as aforesaid, the respondents have issued the amended advertisement dated 2.1.19 extending the benefits of inter alia Rule 17 of the Rules, amended as aforesaid to the candidates applying for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge.
(5 of 5) [CW-142/2019]
the in service candidates further from ‘40 years’ to ‘45 years’, which in no manner could be considered to be illegal or arbitrary. It is not the law that in all the services under the State for different posts, the upper age limit prescribed for different categories must be the same and thus, the petitioners’ claim for enhancement of the upper age limit for in service candidates for the recruitment to the post of Civil Judge at par with the upper age limit as prescribed under other various service Rules of the State for different posts, cannot be countenanced by this court.
“Suffice to state that appointment of Judicial Officers in the Subordinate Courts is governed by Article 235 of the Constitution of India. Appointment to public service on the posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or State is governed by Part-XIV of the Constitution of India comprising Article 308 to 313 of the Constitution. Both stand on different footings. No parity can be claimed by any person for being appointed to Subordinate Courts with condition of service for appointment to public service on the posts in connection with the affairs of the State.”
(DINESH MEHTA),J
(SANGEET LODHA),J
Aditya/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the upper age limit for in-service candidates can be enhanced to 45 years to maintain parity with general candidates under Rule 17 of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.
Whether Article 235 and Part-XIV of the Constitution allow parity between appointments in Subordinate Courts and posts in connection with State affairs.
Whether the deletion of the proviso providing an upper age limit of 40 years for in-service candidates amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manoj Sharma vs. State of RajasthanDistinguished¶54
D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.816/19 'Manoj Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Sheilesh Kumar Asopa
Lalita Mandawariya
Mukesh Kumar
Surendra Singh Kumpawat
State Of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court
DINESH MEHTA
SANGEET LODHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
