Komal Jain vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Amitava Roy, C.J.—The vires of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Rules") to the extent it prescribes 23 years as the minimum age as a condition of eligibility for direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Civil Judge") is under challenge in the instant petition. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is a law graduate from the National Law University, Gandhi Nagar and presently, aged 21 years and 6 months. Rule 17 of the Rules prescribes the limits of age as a condition of eligibility for direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge as hereunder-

Age.--A candidate for direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge must have attained the age of 23 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications.

Though the proviso thereto prescribes relaxation of the upper age limit for the categories of candidates contemplated therein, having regard to the limited assailment in the instant petition, it is inessential to dilate thereon.

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Commission") on 22.7.2011 invited applications for direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Service") governed by the Rules. According to the petitioner, because of her age, though she was otherwise qualified, her candidature would not be accepted. According to her, as the age of majority in the country is 18 years and in many other Public Services, the minimum cut-off age is 21 years, the prescription of 23 years as the minimum age in the Rules is apparently arbitrary and discriminatory and thus, Rule 17 so far as it relates to this stipulation ought to be adjudged unconstitutional, null and void.

The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the above, has urged that the minimum cut-off age prescribed by Rule 17 ought to be scaled down to 21 years to be at par with the prescription in this regard vis-�-vis other Services.

On a consideration of the pleaded facts and the arguments based thereon, we are left unconvinced by the analogy of other Services as a measure to annul the validity of the prescription of 23 years as the minimum age of entry in the Service. As every service has not only salient features singular to it demanding appropriate conditions of eligibility suitable for meeting the exigencies thereof, it is the recognized prerogative of the concerned institutional authorities to prescribe the same as best suited therefor. No absolute comparison on the yardstick of identicalness between two services is either obligatorily contemplated or ordained amongst others due to heterogeneous and dissimilar attributes thereof. It is thus within the domain of the concerned institutional authorities to stipulate the norms/criteria of eligibility for a particular post therein. Merely because a particular norm is in departure from another enjoined for a different service per se would not render the same discriminatory, null and void. The variation in norms or conditions of eligibility for different services depending on the exigencies thereof does not tantamount to hostile and impermissible classification rendering it unconstitutional and invalid only because qua the Service governed by the Rules the entry thereto would be delayed by two years as is the demur of the petitioner. This perception is too far-fetched to be entertained. This criterion having regard to the duties and responsibilities of the office of the Civil Judge is neither illogical nor arbitrary. The prescription of 23 years as the minimum age for direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge ipso facto is thus not unconstitutional, null and void. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the challenge to Rule 17 of the Rules and thus, this petition is rejected.