As far as the DHJS is concerned, the Delhi High Court had in 2019 amended the Rules to specify that a candidate must have attained the age of 35 and ought not to have attained age of 45 for eligibility to sit for the exam.
In a plea before the High Court against this amendment, it was contended that as per Article 233 of the Constitution, the only qualification to be a district judge is continuous practice for 7 years as a lawyer or pleader. In that matter, the High Court had extended the last date of application for the DJHS exam.
Today, the apex court noted in its order that description of a rule providing for minimum and maximum age for service is a matter of policy. It referred to its judgment in Hirendra Kumar which had upheld the age criterion for the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service exam.
On the contention that the age limit was contrary to Article 233 of the Constitution, the Court held,
“Constitution does not preclude the rule-making power of High Courts. Constitution being silent on prescription of minimum age, High Court in exercise of rule-making authority can prescribe such rules.
Recruitment to higher judicial service is intended to be from members of the Bar who have sufficient experience; that is why Constitution stipulates 7 years practice as lawyer. High Courts will be well within their domain to ensure that a candidate with sufficient maturity enters the fold of the higher judiciary. Thus, 35 years age limit is intended to subserve this.”
It thus held that the challenge to the requirement of minimum age of 35 years for the DHJS was without merit.
Source: Barandbench
