airorw h-ut, ^s?T ^R^ s?i1Hicit ~f£S!^ 141^•4, tfTfl'M'ltf, RfOI'My TITOPIT *Nt* lof(C)^^^o;^S- ^ ...........:.....^^............................^...^ ^g l^ anisr'ww (ipf^s^i^ WIRR'SfW 311^1 PETITIONI RESPQNDENTS ftA/rit Petltion undsr Hon'bte ShrtLC. Bhado4 l^:''iy!s !^;3S ^!hiy* .^i?r¥^ S'?'? ?yy*.'°» jj'iiuiM. iu'it^ •irfSsia i '^^aiaS g\uaiaj!ia *iil<'i<!i-< ^wvS if.fe^ <rsi<$i< ^sifimsn^a District Bar Assocjation, through its Secretary, Devesh Dixit, District Court Premises, Bilaspur (CG). -Versus- State of Chhattisgarh, Through Sscretary, Department of Lavv, D.K.S. ihavvan, Raipur(CG). High Court of Chhattisgarh, Through Regiatrar Generai, Silaspur (CG). Chhattlsgarh State Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur ?CGY Prticle 226 of the Constitution of india) I- Slnha. JJ Shri Govind Ram Miri, Shri Suresh Pandey & Shri Rajn'ish Singh Sachei, iearned counsel foi'the petitioner. Shri Prashant MisHra, learned Advocate General wsth Shri A.S. Gaharwar, learneH AddS. Advocate General for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Msnindra Shri^astava, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Ashish Shrivastava, iearnejj counsel for resoondent No.2. ....^^"^, ^':.c-sa^ ^. .'iTC?! '^1 Wi'r, ?<?]' 3TR!?I *t|l«h ^Svf ^ll^lc^, OTfly'IC, fslo'il+fy r?^ fn^vw *MI<*> "^ ', •», aiRSCT vss (ipf^^r) ^Riiwafta OT^I -Z-- Shri Abhishek Sinhfe Shri Shailendra the proposed intervener. Shri H.S. Chhattisgarh, Biiaspur, is] Heard. By this petition und^ petliioner Distrlct Bar Ass{ and correctnsss of the the Chhattisgarh Lower of Serace'j Rules- 2( itlv Sche' the Ruies 2006. The p< ^raferih iin^ •ii.'fs^^fa^n ^aiRnsil^? learned counsei for respondent No 3. & Shri Om P. Sahu. tearned counsei for Mark^m, Registrar General, High Court o* biso Dresent. sr Article 226 of the Constitution of India the ijiciation, Bilaspur, has questioned the tegaiity "tstificaticn ciated 14 August, 2QQ7 whereby Jljdicial Service (Aopointmsnt and Conditions jfor short "the Rules, 2006'") were amended |fe 1 v.'as issued Incorporating Rule 5(1)(c) of ioner praved that the same mav be 'declared as ultra vires to the Con^titution of India. !t has further been praved that High Court mav be o ofthe eilgible candidates ^s perthe Rules, 2006. Brief facts leading eased to direct to arant relaxation in the aae to filina of this writ oetition are that vide notification dated 17-1-2808 the Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisa.arh deciared th^t 60 vacancies are available to be fiiled by way of direct recruitment.jin pursuance of that another advertisement was issued on 6-2-20q8 inviting applicatlons from the eligibte candidates. Ths petitiorler has filed this writ petition with the 1 „_ . . ' ' averments that prior to th^ Ruies, 2006 direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge Class-il wa^ being made on the basis of Lower Judiclal ^;:: ^^a^a 3^T an?TT$PT, riiTOti'l^, Rl^ltty ^Wvf\ *MI* W-.W?Tf »iTi an^i 5OTRT sn^?r irasR (ipf^gg) 200 Services (Appointment ^ short "the ftufes, f894"). j Public Service Commj appointment, procedure the candidates 25 years and upper a( determinsd in the samel UUIl d. The According to Rule 7 of was chanssd as 1 >y, ^nferih •wraftf.ft^t'rf^R ^3JfOT3II^% |nd Conditions of Service) Rales, 1994 (for As per Rute 5 of the Ru!es, 1994 the State i^sion was required to recommend for ^nd conducting sxamination for selection of con^ultatlon with the High Court and State 7 ofthe Rules, 1994the lovi/er age i'mlt was ag^ limit was 35 years. Ths age was to be year in which the examinatjon was to be [1994 were repeaied by the Rules, 2006. th|e Rules, 2006 the date of age to be counted Jsn^iary of the next foiiowing year in which the appiication forms are invitl !t has further bseri Rules, 2006 provides thai mentioned that proviso to Rute 7(1) of the a candidate who was eiigibie in age to apply for appointment in any cspendar year in whfch vacancies were notified as per Ruie 5 (A) and if f^r some reason recruitment proceeding could not be Inltiated, such can^idate shali be eligibie in age to appear in the following recruitment proc^edlngs. in para 7 of the petition, it has been msntiQned that the examjnation wi!l be conducted in 3 stages i.e. (1) preliminary exam; (ii) mai|i exam of 100 marks; and (iii) intervievrf. 5( marks have been aliocat^d for Inten/iew. That means the examination is of total 150 marks- tt| is pertinent to mention here that in earlier examination, out of 225! total marks, 25 marks v.'ere aliocated for inte".'le"i. As per the aipyertisement dsted 1st February, 2008 no 'v 1) ":nt¥'vi ^w i!TfST?nsBIIW 's^ r^i^l^, iSifTly'is, Rfrti'yy Miy<*t( *MI* gn^r •IRI% c^tp^i) 200 ^iIWHfCTSI^I -L^ *l<lii!)4)-1 41Hdf 'if.fetA <(»!<$]< ^SifiiHSII^W relaxation of age has be^n given to the candidates crossing the upper age, ai the exa^nination of Civii Judge Class-!! is being conducted after a gap of 4 years. As per Ruie 7 (1) age relaxation shouid have.been arantefc) as ail the posts were not of the vear 2008. The representation for Hon'ble the Chief Justice Reply has been fi Court. It has been menl laae relaxation. w'as aiso submitted before Ibut nothina has been done. datsd 7th May, 2008 and interview. Learned seni ourt submitted that the msrks instead of 50 mark' As far as the que; ed on behaif of State as we!i as Hii oned th.at as reaards 50 marks which wsn ailocated for interview, trte same has been amended vide notification |now oniy 15 marks have been aitocated for <br counsei aDDearina on behaif of the Hiah candldates wii' be interviewed onlv for 15 ^ as per the notification dated 7'" May, 2008. ^tion of reiaxatlon of ags is concernad, 4 provlso to Rute 7 (1) (b) ofthe Rules, 2006 envlsscses that a candidate who was eligible in age t^ apply for appointment in any calendar year in which vacancies were|notified as per Rule 5 (A) and if for some reason recruitment proce^ding could not be initiated, such candidate shsli be eligible in ag4 to appear in the following reeruitment proceedings, as before 2p08 no vacancy was notified, therefore, no candidate was entifed f(^r relaxation of age and contention of the petitioner is without any rperit. Ultimately it has been prayed that the writ oetition be dlsmissed.! ..ff 1 iss ^Mf'i x X •"'^ i a7R?: ?iT 1%5li?; !;r'ri;i;i^?[9ini^ Tssi '^n\^, ^w'w, Ri^i'yy ^WW *Mleb "Wl sn^r tHW ('j,<=it-i»)<tt) •ERntwNiimsif •it.fe^'riwsR ^T3ifOT3II^?[ fllinn nf fhi<a; vyrif ) Ikllti'hdi t* > ilh IUi^r*t^i<U'i 'a Having heard learijied counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the recordsjand relevant rules. As far as the first c^ntention of iearned counsei for the petitioner that 100 marks have beeh aDocated for written examination whereas 50 marks have been aiiocfeted for inten/iew which Is unreasonable snd rendered the selection rtrocess arbitrary, which is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Spourt rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav & Others vs. Stat^ of Haryana & Others {(1985) 4 SCC 417} is concerned, isarned cou^sel Tor the respondents submitSed that after yide notlfication dated 7" ^/ssy, 2008 the amendment has been is^ued whereby interview marks have been from 50 to 15] thereby doubt of the petitioner stands answered. Since 50 m^rks hsve been reduced to 15 marks notificatiQp. datsd y Ma'A 2008, ths grieyancs of the petitlonsr hss been answered and no'A' ^fter fhis notification there appears to be no justifcation for the petitiorjer to raise this around. In view of this. the ground raised bythe petitii(>ner has become infructuous. As far as the sec^ond point regarding reiaxation of age is concerned, since there v/ds no prior notificstion before the notification dated 17-1-2008 determinlna the vacancies for the post of Civi! Judae CSass-ii, 4'" provisQ to c!ai|se (b) sub-ruie (1) Ru'e 7 ofthe Rules, 2006 envisages that a candid^te who was eiiglble in age to apply for appointment in any calen^ar year in which vacancies were notified as per Ru!e 5^(A) and if for sdfne reason recruitment proceeding coutd not r /V & l'!! ^ XI-HC—7ai ^J /?' ^' ^S'^^-"" ^!f ^ss.!S^"':' 3:5ST "Ml<llc>4, (SiTtly'Ko, faj<?iiy^< *<Wrtt sb^I* iiriiW?nfeN BSff 311^1 gitfe ^ an^?r ixaR (4tif-i«<cifr: <ft!<(f<!l<iht 'HTq^f ^'fel£t^T-^R ^ affim sii^g bs initiated, such candid^te shail be eligibie in age to appear in the following i'ecruitment proe^edings, as prtor to 17-1-2008 the vacancies were not notified, ther^fore, in view of the above proviso, the candidates are not enti1|ed for any reiaxation in upper age iimit. Therefore, in this contentijsn we do not find any substance. In view of the abovje, the petitioner is not entitled for the reiiefs sought for in the writ petit^n. No other point Vi/as |raised by learned counsei for the petitloner. As regards the int^rvention appiication dated 7-5-2008 fiisd by Sushii Kumar Hazari wi'1^1 the prayer thst reservatlon in respect of disabied persons have ]not been kspt in mind while issulng the notification regarding vaqancies and they are entitt.ed for reservation as per the provisions | of the Persons with Disabiiities (Equa! ODDorSunities Protection lof Riahts and Fu!l ParticiDation) Act, 1995, the issue is entirely diff^rent snd this petitlon is filed by District Bar Association on different jssues. Therefors, we are of the view thst intervention cannot be ajlowed in this matter. However, it is made ciear that if the interven^r has any grievancg, he can fi!e fresh v'/rit petition raising his grlevai|ices, if so advlsed. ith the aforesaid bbservations, the petition is dlsmissed. Sd/- Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge .._.;