AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Kumar Verma
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :
a) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 18.08.2021 'List of candidate whose candidature has not been considered for H.J.S. Examination 2021,' passed by the respondent so far as it relates to the petitioner and petitioner be permitted to appear in the H.J.S. Examination 2021.
b) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 19.08.2021 of the petitioner.
c) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to take on record the domicile certificate of the petitioner.
d) A writ, order or direction to give benefit of age relaxation of five year to the petitioner on the basis of domicile and caste certificate of the petitioner according to the provision relaxation in age to candidate belonging to SC/ST/O.B.C. category.
The respondent has issued an Advertisement dated 23.06.2021 for Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Service, 2021, Direct recruitment (from Bar) Examination, 2021 for filling up two vacant post of Additional District & Sessions Judge by direct recruitment under General Category. Out of these two vacant post, one post is reserved for General (Uttarakhand Female) and one post is reserved for General (Economically Weaker Section). A list of candidates, whose candidature has not been considered for H.J.S. Examination, 2021 pursuant to the Advertisement dated 23.06.2021, is issued on 18.08.2021, by which the candidature of the petitioner has not been considered on the ground that the petitioner Prabha Vati Arya, aged about 49 years, has become over-aged and she has not enclosed her domicile certificate with her application.
Heard Mr. Devesh Bishnoi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Rajveer Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for the respondent.
Mr. Devesh Bishnoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class Category, therefore, she should be granted relaxation of five years for appearing in the said examination.
On the other hand, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in the clause 6 of the said Advertisement dated 23.06.2021, it is clearly stated, "There is no reserved post for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and OBC category, hence, the candidature of such applicant shall be treated as a General Category candidate, meaning thereby, no relaxation of reserved category will be admissible to him/her, except the examination fees, payable to the High Court".
Clause 4 of the Advertisement dated 23.06.2021 stipulates that applicants to the direct recruitment must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years, on the 1st day of January, 2021. In other words, applicants should have been born on or after 02.01.1976 and not later than 01.01.1986. Applicants claiming reservation in EWS category are not eligible for any relaxation in upper age limit.
The minimum and maximum age limit of 35 years and 45 years respectively have been fixed vide the Advertisement dated 23.06.2021. Requirement of age has been provided in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2004').
According to the Rule 11 of the said Rules, 2004, a candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January of the year in which the notice inviting applications is published.
The relaxation in the age can only be granted, if permissible under the Rules. In the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and another vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and others, (2006) 9 SCC 507, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules.
Mandamus is not a writ of right. A mandamus will go where there is a specific legal right. A person can be aggrieved only when he/she is denied a legal right. The petitioner has not been in a position to show any legal right to direct the respondent to relax the age for the post of General (Uttarakhand Female) or General (EWS).
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition sans merits. The writ petition is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.