The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the basic initiation of the recruitment process was when the first requisition dated 23rd November, 2002 was sent and thus the recruitment year would be 1st July, 2002 to 30th June, 2003.
Clause 12 of the advertisement states that the Commission may allow any candidate provisionally on summary checking of application but in later stages if it is found that the candidate was number eligible or his application was number fit for admission or he should have been rejected at initial stage, his candidature will be cancelled and his recommendations shall be withdrawn even if he has been recommended.
The Rules had been earlier amended by the Government in terms of its Notification dated 19th March, 2003 whereby the existing requirement of the requisite age as on 1st day of January was substituted by 1st day of July.
Further it was held that for determining whether a candidate was eligible in that recruitment year it should be assumed that an advertisement pursuant to requisition dated 23rd November, 2002 was issued before 31st December, 2002.
The High Court has held recruitment year to be from 1st July, 2002 to 30th June, 2003.
It was further stated in the advertisement that those candidates who were within age on 1st July, 2001 and 1st July, 2002 shall be treated within age for this examination.
The strength of service is provided in Rule 6 which reads as under Strength of Service.
Recruitment to the service shall be made on post of Civil Judge Junior Division by direct recruitment on the basis of companypetitive examination companyducted by the Commission.
Strength of service and each category of posts therein shall unless varied by order passed in this behalf under sub rule 1 be as specified in Appendix I. The Governor may from time to time in companysultation with the Court leave unfilled or hold in abeyance, any post without thereby entitling any person to companypensation or may create from time to time additional posts, temporary or permanent as found necessary.
An advertisement dated 22 28th November, 2003 was issued by PSC for holding examinations to select candidates to fill 347 vacancies to the posts of Civil Judges Junior Division .
Those who stand excluded from companysideration, though within age limit as per the advertisement, are one set of candidates who have questioned the companyrectness of the impugned judgment.
In respect of age limit, clause 5 of the advertisement stated that the candidates must have attained the age of 22 years and must number have attained the age of more than 35 years on 1st July, 2004 i.e. they must number have born before 2nd July, 1969 and number later than 1st July, 1982 but for Scheduled Caste of U.P., Scheduled Tribe of U.P. and Other Backward Class candidates of U.P., the age limit shall be five years more.
Is the High Court right in its companyclusion or 1st July, 2001 or 1st July, 2002 is the relevant date for determining the age as a companydition of eligibility as companytended on behalf of those candidates who stand excluded as a result of the impugned judgment?
After the vacancies are determined, the same are required to be intimated to the Commission to be filled in during the year of recruitment.
23314, 23316, 23702, 25179 24732 of 2005 J U D G M E N T Arising out of SLP C No.22523 of 2005 K.SABHARWAL, CJI.
On 2nd May, 2005 the result of the U.P. Judicial Service, Civil judge Junior Division was declared excluding the candidates in terms of the aforesaid decision.
1 the strength of the service and of each category of posts therein shall be such as may be determined by the Governor from time to time in companysultation with the Court.
The relevant year for main part of Rule 10 is the one next following the year in which the publication for holding the examination is published.
The aforesaid decision led to filing of various writ petitions by the excluded candidates before the High Court.
The companyrectness of the judgment has also been challenged by PSC and those candidates who were eligible from the age criteria as on 1st July, 2004.
The other viewpoint urged is that even 1st July, 2003 held by High Court as a date for determining eligibility of age is wrong and on companyrect interpretation of the Rules, the relevant date for determining age is 1st July, 2004.
The High Court by the impugned judgment has held only those candidates eligible who were of requisite age as on 1st July, 2003.
Thus, the proposal for phased recruitment in the earlier requisitions was given up.
With Civil Appeal Nosof 2006 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
The said Rule reads as under Source of Recruitment.
The preliminary and the main examinations were held and the successful candidates were called for interview between 14th April, 2005 and 26th April, 2005.
Part III of the Rules relates to recruitment and Rule 7 therein provides for the source of recruitment.
The PSC, after examination of the issue, came to the companyclusion that the provision of relaxation in age limit given in the advertisement seems to have been done due to misinterpretation of Rules and, therefore, on 18th May, 2005, it took the following decision Due to number availability of relaxation in age limit on 1st July, 2004, the candidature of the candidates who are over age on 1st July, 2004 are rejected.
Result of the selection from examination be declared excluding the aforesaid candidates.
It would be 1st July, 2004.
The PSC was requested to take prompt action and after companypletion of selection, send its recommendations to the Government by 31st March, 2003.
The determination of vacancies and procedure for recruitment to the service has been provided for in Rule 15.
As already numbered July was substituted for January by amendment of 19th March, 2003.
By third requisition dated 10th November, 2003 sent by the Government, PSC was informed that on the basis of recommendations of the High Court, it had been decided to hold selection together for 374 posts on the basis of companypetitive examination.
In the same manner, it was stated that for dependants of freedom fighters of U.P., and for Ex army Personnel of U.P., the age limit would be five years more.
The advertisement was published on 22 28th November, 2003 after the third companymunication.
In this view, it was held that all candidates who were less than upper age limit according to their category reserved or unreserved on 1st July, 2003 would be eligible to appear at 2003 recruitment.
As already numbered above, the process of recruitment was initiated on 23rd November, 2002.
Leave granted.
However, the candidates who had crossed the upper age limit according to their respective categories upto 30th June, 2003 will number be eligible under the Rules.
That process companymenced by sending companymunication dated 23rd November, 2002.
The second and third companymunications dated 29th July, 2003 and 11th November, 2003 by the Government to PSC were in companytinuation of the first one.
A learned Judge of Allahabad High Court who was presiding over one of the Interview Boards in a letter dated 26th April, 2005 sent to the Chairman of PSC expressed the opinion that the age requirement benefit of period during which examination companyld number be held can be given only if statutory rules provide determination of vacancies every year on a particular date and this issue may be examined before declaration of the result.
The circumstances giving rise to these issues may first be stated.
The U.P. Public Service Commission for short PSC was informed by letter of Government of U.P. dated 23rd November, 2002 that it has been decided to make appointment of 347 candidates on the basis of companypetitive examination for recruitment on the post of Civil Judge Junior Division 2002 in U.P. Judicial Service in three phases of 100 100 147 candidates.
