Case: HIRANDRA KUMAR Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

of the notification. The employer in this behalf has a choice. Its discretion can be held to be arbitrary but then the High Court only with a view to show sympathy to some of the candidates could not have fixed another date, only because according to it, another date was more suitable. In law it was not necessary. The Courts power of judicial review in this behalf although exists but is limited in the sense that the impugned action can be struck down only when it is found to be arbitrary. It is possible that by reason of such a cut-off date an employee misses his chance very narrowly. Such hazards would be there in all the services. Only because it causes hardship to a few persons or a section of the employees may not by itself be a good ground for directing fixation of another cutoff date. (Emphasis supplied) 27. These judgments provide a clear answer to the challenge. The petitioners and the appellant desire that this Court should roll-back the date with reference to which attainment of the upper age limit of 48 years should be considered. Such an exercise is impermissible. In order to indicate the fallacy in the submission, it is significant to note that Rule 12 prescribes a minimum age of 35 years and an upper age limit of 45 years (48 years for reserved candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes). Under the Rule, the age limit is prescribed with reference to the first day of January of the year following the year in which the notice inviting applications is published. If the relevant date were to be rolled back, as desired by the petitioners, to an anterior point in time, it is true that some candidates who have crossed the upper age limit under Rule 12 may become eligible. But, interestingly that would affect candidates who on the anterior date may not have attained the minimum age of 35 years but would attain that age under the present Rule. We are adverting to this aspect only to emphasise that the validity of the Rule cannot be made to depend on cases of individual hardship which inevitably arise in applying a principle of general application. Essentially, the determination of cut-off dates lies in the realm of policy. A court in the exercise of the power of judicial review does not take over that function for itself. Plainly, it is for the rule making authority to discharge that function while framing the Rules. 28. We do not find any merit in the grievance of discrimination. For the purpose of determining whether a member of the Bar has fulfilled the requirement of seven years practice, the cut-off date is the last date for the submission of the applications. For the fulfillment of the age criterion, the cut-off date which is prescribed is the first day of January following the year in which a notice inviting applications is being published. Both the above cut-off dates are with reference to distinct requirements. The seven year practice requirement is referable to the provisions of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. The prescription of an age limit of 45 years, or as the case may be, of 48 years for reserved category candidates, is in pursuance of the discretion vested in the appointing authority to prescribe an age criterion for recruitment to the HJS. 29. For the same reason, no case of discrimination or arbitrariness can be made out on the basis of a facial comparison of the Higher Judicial Service Rules, with the Rules governing Nyayik Sewa. Both sets of rules cater to different cadres. A case of discrimination cannot be made out on the basis of a comparison of two sets of rules which govern different cadres. 30. For the above reasons, we hold that there is no merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rules 8 and 12. We concur with the reasoning of the High Court in upholding Rules 8 and 12 in the judgments noted earlier. 31. In the alternative, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that since they have been granted permission to appear at the examinations in pursuance of the interim directions that were issued during the pendency of these proceedings, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct that the results be declared. 32. We are unable to accede to that request. For one thing, there would be other candidates who have not approached this Court and who would have been in the same position of not meeting the age criterion. Moreover, allowing a group of candidates to breach the age criterion by taking recourse to the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India would, in our view not be appropriate inviting, as it does, a breach of the governing Rules for the UP Higher Judicial Service. 33. We find that the order of this Court in Sandeep Gupta vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Its Registrar General, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 594/2016, dated on 19 July 2018 is distinguishable. While taking recourse to the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, a two Judge Bench of this Court had observed that the order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances and shall not be treated as a precedent. Moreover, in that case, the results had already been declared which was a consideration which weighed with the Court in taking recourse to the power under Article 142. 34. In the facts and circumstances of the present batch of cases, we see no reason or justification to interfere. The petitioners had sufficient opportunities in the past to appear for the HJS examinations at a time when they were within the age limit. Having not succeeded in that, their attempt at moving this Court to seek a relaxation of the Rules or through a challenge to the Rules, is misconceived.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]17. The submission which was urged on behalf of the petitioners is based on the decision of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra). While formulating a time schedule for the filling up of vacancies both in the Higher Judicial Service and at all other levels in the district judiciary, this Court was cognizant of the fact that recruitment rules are in operation in all the States and Union Territories. Bearing this in mind, this Court observed:5. Before we issue general directions and the time schedule to be adhered to for filling vacancies that may arise in subordinate courts and District Courts, it is necessary to note that selections are required to be conducted by the authorities concerned as per the existing Judicial Service Rules in the respective States/Union Territories. We may, however, note that, progressively, the authorities concerned would consider, discuss and eventually may arrive at a consensus that the selection process be conducted by the High Court itself or by the Public Service Commission under the control and supervision of the High Court.The directions which have been issued in Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra) are being monitored by this Court. The Allahabad High Court has been submitting progressive reports which are monitored by this Court for compliance. The purpose of the directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra) was to ensure that vacancies in the district judiciary are not left unfilled over long periods of time, undermining the efficacy of the judicial system. Equally, the Court was cognizant of the fact that each High Court has its recruitment rules. It is in view of that background that the general implementation of the directions which have been issued is being continuously monitored.19. The directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra) are intended to address the issue of vacancies in the district judiciary. Those directions do not override the prevailing rules which govern selections to the HJS in the States and the Union Territories nor do they create an enforceable right in any candidate for selection or to assert a right to age relaxation in violation of the rules. So long as the rules hold the field, a candidate in order to be eligible, must fulfil the requirements of age and other conditions which are prescribed by the Rules.20. The submission which has been urged in these proceedings is that the prescription of not later than three years in Rule 8 and of the upper age limit in Rule 12 is ultra vires and arbitrary. The validity of both Rules 8 and 12 has been addressed in decisions rendered by the Division Benches of the Allahabad High Court. The constitutional validity of Rule 8 has been upheld in Suraj Bali Singh (supra). The same submission that has been urged before this Court was considered in that decision by the Division Bench. A Special Leave Petition against the judgment in Suraj Bali Singh (supra) was withdrawn on 4 August 2017. The validity of Rule 12 has been upheld by another Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Agarwal (supra).21. The legal principles which govern the determination of a cut-off date are well settled. The power to fix a cut-off date or age limit is incidental to the regulatory control which an authority exercises over the selection process. A certain degree of arbitrariness may appear on the face of any cut-off or age limit which is prescribed, since a candidate on the wrong side of the line may stand excluded as a consequence. That, however, is no reason to hold that the cut-off which is prescribed, is arbitrary. In order to declare that a cut-off is arbitrary and ultra vires, it must be of such a nature as to lead to the conclusion that it has been fixed without any rational basis whatsoever or is manifestly unreasonable so as to lead to a conclusion of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.26. In Ramesh Chandra Agarwal (supra), the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research framed a scheme for the absorption of researchers working in their laboratories and institutes following the directions of this Court. It was prescribed that eligible applicants must have 15 years of continuous research on 2 May 1997. The Director was conferred powers to relax the requirement. Contending that that the tenure of researchers is ordinarily 13 years, the prescription of 15 years was challenged as being ultra vires and arbitrary. This contention was accepted by the High Court. On appeal, a two judge Bench of this Court examined the scheme and applicable avenues to researchers. Noting that there was no ceiling of 13 years on researchers, this Court upheld the prescription of 15 years and the cut-off date. The Court held thus:29. State is entitled to fix a cut-off date. Such a decision can be struck down only when it is arbitrary. Its invalidation may also depend upon the question as to whether it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 2-5-1997 was the date fixed as the cut-off date in terms of the Scheme. The reason assigned therefore was that this was the date when this Court directed the appellants to consider framing of a regularisation scheme. They could have picked up any other date. They could have even picked up the date of the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. As rightly contended by Mr Patwalia, by choosing 2-5-1997 as the cut-off date, no illegality was committed. Ex facie, it cannot be said to be arbitrary.30. The High Court, however, proceeded on the basis that the cut-off date should have been the date of issuance of the notification. The employer in this behalf has a choice. Its discretion can be held to be arbitrary but then the High Court only with a view to show sympathy to some of the candidates could not have fixed another date, only because according to it, another date was more suitable. In law it was not necessary. The Courts power of judicial review in this behalf although exists but is limited in the sense that the impugned action can be struck down only when it is found to be arbitrary. It is possible that by reason of such a cut-off date an employee misses his chance very narrowly. Such hazards would be there in all the services. Only because it causes hardship to a few persons or a section of the employees may not by itself be a good ground for directing fixation of another cutoff date.(Emphasis supplied)27. These judgments provide a clear answer to the challenge. The petitioners and the appellant desire that this Court should roll-back the date with reference to which attainment of the upper age limit of 48 years should be considered. Such an exercise is impermissible. In order to indicate the fallacy in the submission, it is significant to note that Rule 12 prescribes a minimum age of 35 years and an upper age limit of 45 years (48 years for reserved candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes). Under the Rule, the age limit is prescribed with reference to the first day of January of the year following the year in which the notice inviting applications is published. If the relevant date were to be rolled back, as desired by the petitioners, to an anterior point in time, it is true that some candidates who have crossed the upper age limit under Rule 12 may become eligible. But, interestingly that would affect candidates who on the anterior date may not have attained the minimum age of 35 years but would attain that age under the present Rule. We are adverting to this aspect only to emphasise that the validity of the Rule cannot be made to depend on cases of individual hardship which inevitably arise in applying a principle of general application. Essentially, the determination of cut-off dates lies in the realm of policy. A court in the exercise of the power of judicial review does not take over that function for itself. Plainly, it is for the rule making authority to discharge that function while framing the Rules.28. We do not find any merit in the grievance of discrimination. For the purpose of determining whether a member of the Bar has fulfilled the requirement of seven years practice, the cut-off date is the last date for the submission of the applications. For the fulfillment of the age criterion, the cut-off date which is prescribed is the first day of January following the year in which a notice inviting applications is being published. Both the above cut-off dates are with reference to distinct requirements. The seven year practice requirement is referable to the provisions of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. The prescription of an age limit of 45 years, or as the case may be, of 48 years for reserved category candidates, is in pursuance of the discretion vested in the appointing authority to prescribe an age criterion for recruitment to the HJS.29. For the same reason, no case of discrimination or arbitrariness can be made out on the basis of a facial comparison of the Higher Judicial Service Rules, with the Rules governing Nyayik Sewa. Both sets of rules cater to different cadres. A case of discrimination cannot be made out on the basis of a comparison of two sets of rules which govern different cadres.30. For the above reasons, we hold that there is no merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rules 8 and 12. We concur with the reasoning of the High Court in upholding Rules 8 and 12 in the judgments noted earlier.32. We are unable to accede to that request. For one thing, there would be other candidates who have not approached this Court and who would have been in the same position of not meeting the age criterion. Moreover, allowing a group of candidates to breach the age criterion by taking recourse to the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India would, in our view not be appropriate inviting, as it does, a breach of the governing Rules for the UP Higher Judicial Service.33. We find that the order of this Court in Sandeep Gupta vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Its Registrar General, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 594/2016, dated on 19 July 2018 is distinguishable. While taking recourse to the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, a two Judge Bench of this Court had observed that the order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances and shall not be treated as a precedent. Moreover, in that case, the results had already been declared which was a consideration which weighed with the Court in taking recourse to the power under Article 142.34. In the facts and circumstances of the present batch of cases, we see no reason or justification to interfere. The petitioners had sufficient opportunities in the past to appear for the HJS examinations at a time when they were within the age limit. Having not succeeded in that, their attempt at moving this Court to seek a relaxation of the Rules or through a challenge to the Rules, is misconceived.