our opinion, the petitioners have not made out any ground whatsoever to hold the eligibility criteria as unconstitutional. As noted principally, only two grounds were raised. Firstly, that some of the States have removed the minimum age requirement. That by itself would not render the Rule unconstitutional. In fact, as noted, the Shetty Commission recommendations were exactly along this line. These recommendations have been examined and approved by the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association (supra). The other ground was that there is already an experience requirement of seven years, after which inserting the filter of minimum age qualification does not serve any purpose. We have noted the importance and seriousness attached to this source of recruitment and that nature of duties, functions and responsibilities to be discharged by the District Judge upon his appointment. If the rule making authority, which in the present case is High Court, has after due deliberations decided that the minimum age criteria should be applied for direct recruitment, we do not find such a requirement is arbitrary or unreasonable. As is well known, such policy decisions are taken by the High Court in Full Court meetings. The Full Court comprises of all sitting Judges of the High Court on the day. After such deliberations, if the rule making authority has prescribed the criteria, the same cannot be lightly disturbed.
