Lawyers move High Court challenging maximum age criteria, hearing tomorrow

Nine lawyers petitioned the Delhi High Court to challenge the maximum age requirement of 45 years (as of 1st January 2022) to apply and appear for the Delhi High Court Services Examination 2022. The plea was filed by l Intermediary lawyers Addtya Kapoor, Manika Goswamy, Medha Tandon, Kushal Kumar, Harsh Ahuja and Akash Dep Gupta are due to be heard tomorrow. While the last filling date of…

Nine lawyers have petitioned the Delhi High Court to challenge the maximum age requirement of 45 (as of January 1, 2022) to apply and appear for the Delhi Senior Judicial Service Examination 2022.

The plea filed by Lawyers Addtya Kapoor, Manika Goswamy, Medha Tandon, Kushal Kumar, Harsh Ahuja and Akash Dep Gupta must be heard tomorrow.

While the last date for completing the online application form for the exam was March 12, 2022, the preliminary exam was scheduled for March 20, 2022. However, a divisional bench headed by Judge Manmohan earlier this month postponed said review to April 7. in a petition challenging the minimum age of 35 to take the exam.

Delhi High Court postpones DHJS exam, 2022; Grants interim relief in plea challenging minimum age criteria

This plea seeks appropriate amendments in the Delhi Superior Judicial Services Rules, 1970 and subsequent advertisement dated 23rd February 2022 issued by the defendants in which the maximum age of 45 years as of 1st January 2022 was provided as a criterion for eligibility to apply and appear. for the exam.

“The applicants are registered as barristers with a practice of nearly two decades at the bar and are aspirants for the senior judicial services of Delhi 2022, however, the applicants have been made ineligible due to the reckoning date being 01.01. 2022. Applicants possess all other necessary prescribed qualifications to sit for Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination”, the plea says.

The plea says that in the last exam being the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination – 2019, applications were invited with the deadline being 1st January 2019 and only 4 candidates were declared qualified in the results declared in June from last year.

In this context, the plea reads as follows:

“As a result, the vacancies intended for the direct recruitment quota are not filled for lack of suitable candidates and, therefore, remain vacant. Therefore, the stipulation of the upper age limit by the defendants has no reasonable connection with the goal to be achieved. . Also, setting the upper age limit is arbitrary because in some states the upper age is over 45.”

The plea further states that a plain reading of Section 233 demonstrates that the qualification to be appointed as a District Judge is practice as a barrister or litigant of at least seven years and is recommended by the High Court.

He asserts that the petitioners hold nearly two decades of established practice and are therefore fully qualified under the provisions of Section 233.

“Therefore, denial of an opportunity based on age is wrong in the eyes of the law. Nowhere do the provisions of the Constitution state the maximum age of 45 for appointment to the office of district judge.“, reads the plea.

He adds “In addition to this, the deadline being 01.01.2022 deprives candidates/aspirants who would otherwise have been eligible if the exams were routinely held in the years 2020 and 2021. This is a big setback for the rights of Applicants and other similarly placed Bar Candidates/Aspirants are highly discriminatory and impede the rights of Bar Candidates to a fair opportunity to participate The Applicants suffer through no fault of theirs who may apply in 2020 if the recruitment has been announced.”


Mark M. Gagnon