The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition that contested the upper age limit for candidates applying for the Civil Judge recruitment examination.

The challenge was brought by an aspirant who had surpassed the age limit. He argued that the age restriction was contrary to the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010. These rules aim to allow candidates who became ineligible due to irregular exam schedules to participate, even though they would have qualified if the exams had been conducted annually.

A division bench led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava noted that the last recruitment took place in 2021, during which the petitioner was eligible. Although the exams were not held in 2022, the petitioner would not have been eligible to appear that year regardless.

"Even if the examination would have been held in the very next following year i.e. in the year 2022, the petitioner would not have been eligible and he was barred by age even with relaxation. If that be so, it is difficult to comprehend that a candidate who was otherwise not eligible even in the year 2022, should be granted benefit of deemed age eligibility by invoking proviso (iv) to Rule 17 of the Rules of 2010."

Rule 17 sets the lower age limit at 21 years and the upper age limit at 40 years (calculated on the first day of January following the last date for application submission) for direct recruitment to the Civil Judge cadre. Proviso (iv) stipulates that if a candidate would have been eligible based on age to appear for the examination in any year when it wasn't conducted, they are considered eligible to appear in the next scheduled examination.

The Court noted that Proviso (iv) to Rule 17 intended to relax the age limit for candidates who would have been eligible in a subsequent year if the exam had been conducted then but became ineligible due to the recruitment process gap. These individuals would be considered eligible for the next examination.

The Court ruled that deemed eligibility would be determined by assessing whether the candidate would have been eligible with age relaxation under Rule 17 if the exam had been conducted in the subsequent year. Only if this assessment is affirmative would the relaxation under Rule 17 Proviso (iv) apply to that candidate.

Based on this analysis, it was observed that Clause 20 of the recruitment advertisement did not violate Rule 17 of the Rule and the petition was dismissed.

Title: Ghanshyam Das v Rajasthan High Court and Anr