IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.17977 of 2009 Decided on : 25.11.2009 Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH *** Present:- Mr. A. S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M. M. KUMAR J. The petitioner who is a practising Advocate in this Court has filed the instant petition under Section 226 of the Constitution seeking declaration that Rule 11(C) of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, framed in exercise of Power under Article 309 of the Constitution being Ultra-vires to Article 233 of the Constitution. It is pertinent to mention that for appointment to the post of Additional District Judges minimum age of 35 years and maximum age of 45 years on the first day of January of the year in which the applications for recruitment are invited, have been provided. The petitioner has also prayed that he shall be treated as eligible candidate for the post of Haryana Superior CWP No.17977 of 2009 Judicial Service which has been advertised on 21.10.2009 (P-1) by this Court. We have heard learned Counsel at a considerable length and find that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution it has been stipulated that a person not already in service of the Union of India or the State would alone be eligible to be appointed as District Judge. The further condition of eligibility is that he has to have 7 years practice as an Advocate or a Pleader and on the basis of the eligibility his name can be recommended by the High Court for appointment. There is nothing in the Article 233 which may prohibits prescription of minimum age for appointment to the post of Additional District Judges. The question regarding the minimum and maximum age of appointment exclusively belongs to the competence of rule-making authorities. The rules apparently have been framed by the respondent-State in consultation with the High Court. It is well settled that prescription of age for entry into service is the job of experts and Courts are not well equipped with the data to formulate any such conditions of service. Even otherwise we do not find any arbitrariness in prescription of minimum age of 35 years and the wisdom of rule-making authorities has to be respected. The only argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Shetty Commission in its recommendation for appointment to the post of Additional District Judges has recommended the age of 35 to 45 years in respect of service Judges. The recommendation of the Shetty Commission were subject matter of consideration of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247. The aforesaid recommendation in so far as relevant to this matter have been quoted in para 9(6) which is as under:- 2 CWP No.17977 of 2009 “9.(6) The Commission also recommended that service Judges who were between 35 and 45 years of age should be made eligible for direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service which consists of the posts of District Judges and Additional District Judges and for this purpose, if necessary, there should be an amendment to Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India.” On the basis of the aforesaid recommendation, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that Hon’ble the Supreme Court in para 27 has laid down that their has to be certain minimum standard for officers who were to enter Higher Judicial Service as Additional District Judges and District Judges carving out 25% quota for the service Judges by the process of competitive examination, both written and viva-voce. Hon’ble the Supreme Court did not prescribe minimum or maximum age. It was recommended in concluding part of para 27 that Civil Judge (Senior Division) with minimum 5 years of service could participate in such an examination and to the extent of 25% could be considered for promotion. According to the learned counsel, Hon’ble the Supreme Court did not accept the recommendation of the Shetty Commission prescribing the age limit of 35 to 45 years and therefore it may be concluded that no age limit except 7 years practice as an Advocate was necessary to become eligible for appointment to the post of Additional District Judge and District Judge. The argument is wholly unsustainable because in paras 38 and 39 of the judgment the States have been asked to amend the rules to implement the direction issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. There is nothing in the judgment which may suggest that only 7 years practice as an 3 CWP No.17977 of 2009 Advocate is required to secure eligibility and no age limit for entry into service needs to be prescribed. The writ petition does not warrant admission and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M. M. Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) November 25, 2009 Judge ashish 4