Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of Rules 8(1) and 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. The petitioners, who were candidates for direct recruitment to the UPHJS, challenged these rules as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Rule 8(1) requires the High Court to fix the number of vacancies for recruitment at intervals not exceeding three years, while Rule 12 prescribes an age limit of 35 to 45 years (48 for SC/ST) with reference to January 1 following the year of advertisement. The petitioners argued that the three-year gap between recruitments caused candidates to become age-barred, and that the cut-off date for age was arbitrary. They also relied on the decision in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, which directed yearly recruitment. The High Court opposed the challenge, contending that the rules were legislative in nature and not manifestly arbitrary, and that the directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan were subject to existing rules. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of both rules, holding that the prescription of a three-year recruitment cycle and the age limit with a fixed cut-off date were reasonable and within the discretion of the rule-making authority. The Court noted that the High Court had complied with Rule 8 by conducting recruitments in 2012, 2014, and 2016, and that the directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan did not create an enforceable right for candidates. The petitions and the appeal were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Validity of Subordinate Legislation - Manifest Arbitrariness - Rules 8(1) and 12 of Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 - The petitioners challenged the rules prescribing a three-year recruitment cycle and an age limit of 45 years (48 for SC/ST) as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The Court held that the rules are legislative in character and can be struck down only if manifestly arbitrary. The prescription of a cut-off date and recruitment interval is within the discretion of the rule-making authority and is reasonable. (Paras 8-17)
B) Service Law - Recruitment - Time Schedule - Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission - The directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan for yearly recruitment are subject to the rules of each High Court and do not create an enforceable right in candidates. The High Court complied with Rule 8 by conducting recruitments in 2012, 2014, and 2016. (Paras 9, 12, 17)
C) Service Law - Age Limit - Cut-off Date - Rule 12 of UPHJS Rules, 1975 - The age limit of 45 years (48 for SC/ST) with reference to January 1 following the advertisement year is a reasonable classification and not discriminatory. The different cut-off for experience (last date of application) does not render the age limit arbitrary. (Paras 10-11, 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rules 8(1) and 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 are constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions and the appeal, upholding the constitutional validity of Rules 8(1) and 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. The Court held that the rules are not manifestly arbitrary and are within the discretion of the rule-making authority. The directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan do not create an enforceable right for yearly recruitment.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity of subordinate legislation
- manifest arbitrariness test
- prescription of cut-off dates
- recruitment cycle for judicial service
- age limit for direct recruitment
- interpretation of Malik Mazhar Sultan directions
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (1) 122
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1343 of 2018 with Civil Appeal No. 1262 of 2019 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1382/2018
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 32 and a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 8(1) and 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that Rules 8(1) and 12 are ultra vires the Constitution and direction to allow petitioners to participate in recruitment without age bar.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were debarred from direct recruitment to UPHJS due to age limit under Rule 12 and alleged that the three-year recruitment cycle under Rule 8(1) caused them to become age-barred.
Previous Decisions
The Allahabad High Court in Gauri Shankar Prasad v Registrar General upheld the rules following its earlier decision in Suraj Bali Singh. The Supreme Court had issued an interim direction on 18 June 2018 allowing one appellant to appear in examinations subject to result being kept in sealed cover.
Issues
Whether Rule 8(1) of the UPHJS Rules, 1975, which mandates recruitment at intervals not exceeding three years, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16?
Whether Rule 12 of the UPHJS Rules, 1975, prescribing an age limit of 45 years (48 for SC/ST) with reference to January 1 following the advertisement year, is arbitrary and discriminatory?
Whether the directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission require yearly recruitment and override Rule 8(1)?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: Rules 8(1) and 12 are arbitrary as they cause candidates to become age-barred due to the three-year gap; the cut-off date for age is unreasonable; the directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan mandate yearly recruitment.
Respondent (High Court): Rules are legislative and not manifestly arbitrary; candidates have no fundamental right to yearly recruitment; Malik Mazhar Sultan directions are subject to existing rules; similar age limits exist in other states.
Ratio Decidendi
Subordinate legislation can be struck down only if it is manifestly arbitrary. The prescription of a three-year recruitment cycle and an age limit with a fixed cut-off date is reasonable and within the discretion of the rule-making authority. The directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan for yearly recruitment are subject to the rules of each High Court and do not confer an enforceable right on candidates.
Judgment Excerpts
The constitutional validity of Rules 8(1) and 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 is in issue in these proceedings.
The time schedule prescribed indicates that vacancies in the HJS have to be filled up on a yearly basis; ... the time schedule which has been prescribed in Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra) is mandatory.
The Rules of 1975 are legislative in character and it is only in a situation of manifest arbitrariness that a rule can be held to be ultra vires.
The decision in Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra) clearly specifies that the general directions which were issued by this Court to all High Courts to hold recruitment every year is subject to the Rules of each High Court.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 32 and a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 challenging Rules 8(1) and 12 of the UPHJS Rules, 1975. The Allahabad High Court had earlier upheld the rules in Gauri Shankar Prasad v Registrar General, following its decision in Suraj Bali Singh. The Supreme Court granted leave in the SLP and heard all matters together.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 16, Article 32, Article 136
- Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975: Rule 6, Rule 8(1), Rule 8(2), Rule 12
