CASE SUMMARY
In K. Nithyashree Vs Union of India & Anr., [W.P. No. 9846 of 2023], the Division Bench of the Madras High Court led by the Hon'ble Chief Justice has upheld the validity of the Puducherry Judicial Service Recruitment Rules as amended in 2016 in so far as they prescribe attainment of the age of 35 years as eligibility for appointment as district judge by direct recruitment.
FACTS:
The Petitioner who is an advocate with more than 8 years and five months of Court practice and otherwise eligible under Article 233 of the Constitution of India for appointment as District Judge (with not less than seven years of Court practice) could not apply for the post of District Judge in view of the impugned recruitment rules. Aggrieved, the relevant provision under the Recruitment Rules was put to challenge.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
- The prescription of attainment of age of 35 years for appointment as District Judge (entry level) by direct recruitment is arbitrary and has no rationale behind such prescription;
- The impugned rules violate twin test by classifying advocates with seven or more years of practice into those who have attained the age of 35 years and those who have not attained the age of 35 years without any reasonable basis and nexus to the object of such classification.
- The impugned rules treat advocates with equal years of practice differently based on age and is thus violative of Article 14 in so far as they treat equals unequally;
- Prescribing a minimum age over and beyond what the Constitution itself prescribes permitting advocates with not less than seven years of practice to become District Judges is in conflict with the Constitution.
- The impugned rules permit advocates with lesser years of practice than the Petitioner only on attainment of 35 years of age;
- Minimum Age is an irrelevant consideration for making such appointments;
- In Chandra Mohan vs State of UP [AIR 1966 SC 1987], the apex Court has held that Article 233 is a self-contained provision regarding appointment of District Judges. Therefore, the rules framed by the Lieutenant Governor under Article 309 could not override powers of High Court under Article 233. In the High Court of Delhi vs Devina Sharma [(2022) 4 SCC 643], Supreme Court upheld minimum age restriction in Delhi Higher Judicial Service as the power was exercised by the Delhi High Court.
- Upholding identical provision in TN recruitment Rules in S. Murugan Vs State of Tamil Nadu & anr., [W.P. No. 49/2020] is bad in law.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR HIGH COURT OF MADRAS:
- S. Murugan Vs State of TN is a binding precedent;
- Supreme Court has upheld discretion of State to prescribe age in Juducial Service Recruitments in Hirandra Kumar Vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [2019(2) Allahabad Weekly cases 1507 (SC)];
- In High Court of Delhi Vs Devina Sharma, Supreme Court has held age is not extraneous to acquisition of maturity and experience, especially in judicial institutions.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
Petition dismissed upholding the validity of the impugned Puducherry judicial service recruitment rules as amended in 2016.
REASONS:
- S. Murugan Vs State of TN, in which the Court had upheld identical TN rules observing that ‘35 years of minimum age appears to have been fixed keeping in view the stage of maturity of mind of the person who has to occupy the office of the District Judge (Entry Level)’, is binding;
- Though the impugned rules was notified by the Government, it is done only at the request of the High Court. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that Lt- Governor could not override powers of the High Court in prescribing minimum age for appointments of District Judges.
COUNSELS:
For Petitioner: Senior Counsel PVS Giridhar for Ms. Akshayaa Benjamin;
For the Madras High Court: B. Vijay;
For PY Government: V. Vasantha Kumar (AGP PY).
Date of Judgment: 30.03.2023
(This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.)
Comments