NDLI: Hirandra Kumar Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	rr. 8 Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules 12 1975 Challenge to
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 :rr. 8, 12 – Challenge to – Rule 8(1) inter alia postulates that from time to time, but not later than three years from the last recruitment, the High Court shall determine the number of officers to be taken at the recruitment – Under r.12, inter alia minimum age criterion of 35 years and maximum age limit of 45 years is stipulated – Advertisement issued for direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (UPHJS) – Petitioners applied – Debarred on grounds of age – Constitutional validity of rr.8(1) and 12 challenged inter alia on the grounds that by operation of rr.8 and 12, candidates who have crossed the age limit prescribed between the date of the last recruitment and the present recruitment by the lapse of three years in the interregnum get debarred from appearing in the examination – And also that in view of directions of Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan regarding time schedule fixed for filling up vacancies in judicial services, the vacancies in HJS have to be filled up on yearly basis – Held: Constitutional validity of r.8 was upheld in Suraj Bali Singh by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, special leave petition against which was withdrawn – Validity of r.12 was upheld by another Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Agarwal – Certain degree of arbitrariness may appear on the face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 prescribed cut-off is arbitrary – Validity of the Rule cannot be made to depend on cases of individual hardship which inevitably arise in applying a principle of general application – Further, directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan do not create an enforceable right in any candidate for selection or to assert a right to age relaxation in violation of the rule – No merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of rr. 8 and 12 – Petitioners had sufficient opportunities in the past to appear for the HJS examinations when they were within the age limit – Having not succeeded in that, their attempt at moving Supreme Court to seek relaxation of the Rules or to challenge the Rules, is misconceived – Constitution of India – Arts.142, 233(2).Service Law – Selection – Age limit/Cut-off date – Challenge to – Held: Power to fix cut-off date or age limit is incidental to the regulatory control which an authority exercises over the selection process – For a cut-off to be arbitrary and ultra vires, it must be fixed without any rational basis or be manifestly unreasonable to be violative of Art.14 of the Constitution – Constitution of India – Art.14. Rule 8(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 inter alia postulates that from time to time, but not later than three years from the last recruitment, the High Court shall determine the number of officers to be taken at the recruitment. Under Rule 12 of the 1975 Rules inter alia a minimum age criterion of 35 years and a maximum age limit of 45 years is stipulated (relaxable by three years for SC and ST candidates). An advertisement was issued for direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (UPHJS). Petitioners applied but, were debarred on grounds of age as being not compliant with the age limit prescribed in Rule 12. Writ petitions filed by the petitioners and C.A No. 1262 of 2019 filed by the appellant therein, challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 8(1) and 12 of the 1975 Rules.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 111
Petitioner	Hirandra Kumar
Respondent	High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad & Anr.
SCR	[2019] 2 S.C.R. 608
Judgement Date	2019-01-29
Case Number	1343

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Hirandra Kumar Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature At Allahabad – Through Registrar General Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

D.k. Agarwal Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad

Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan Others

P.k. Dixit and Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Maharashtra State Judges Association & Ors. Vs. The Registrar General, High Court, High Court of Judicature At Bombay & Anr.

V.k. Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Govt. of U.p. & Anr.

Jamshed Ansari Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr.

High Court of Judicature At Allahabad Through Registrar Vs. Sarnam Singh and Anr.

Hirandra Kumar Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad & Anr.

Hirandra Kumar Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature At Allahabad – Through Registrar General Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

D.k. Agarwal Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad

Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan Others

P.k. Dixit and Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Maharashtra State Judges Association & Ors. Vs. The Registrar General, High Court, High Court of Judicature At Bombay & Anr.

V.k. Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Govt. of U.p. & Anr.

Jamshed Ansari Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr.

High Court of Judicature At Allahabad Through Registrar Vs. Sarnam Singh and Anr.

Hirandra Kumar Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad & Anr.