1. Eighty-nine aspirants seeking appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) who crossed the age of 35 years as on 31st January 2023 are before this Court by filing thirty writ petitions seeking shifting of the cut-off date to 31st January 2019 as regards the upper age limit for making an application pursuant to Advertisement No.22 of 2023.

2. The said advertisement was issued on 14th August 2023 inviting applications for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The last date for filing the online applications was 21st September 2023 but, before that, WP(S) No.4852 of 2023 was filed on 29th August 2023. This writ petition was taken up for hearing on 6th September 2023 and a direction was issued by the Hon’ble DB-I to the Registrar General to ascertain whether there has been any recruitment exercise in the last 5 years for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). By that time, other writ petitions also came to be filed and on 13th September 2023 this writ petition was listed along with WP(S) Nos.4669 of 2023 and 5081 of 2023.

3. On that day, the following order was passed by this Court:

“The petitioners have prayed for age relaxation in view of the fact that for the last five years, there has been no recruitment of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) in the State of Jharkhand. At present, an advertisement has been issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for recruitment of Civil Judges (Jr. Division) and the petitioners are overage. It is apparent from the record that there has been no following of guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 17 SCC 703 [LQ/SC/2007/11] .

Learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hirandra Kumar vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Another, (2020) 17 SCC 401, [LQ/SC/2019/146 ;] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it should not extend to upper age limit by predating the cut-off date. However, the fact of that case is different from the present bunch of cases in the sense that in The Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1975, a time-limit has been provided in Rule 8 and the upper age limit has been provided in Rule 12. However, in the rule that guide the Jharkhand Recruitment for Civil Judges (Jr. Division), there is no such time limit prescribed. In that view of the matter, the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan’s case (supra), should be followed by the State of Jharkhand as well as the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to issue notice.

Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G.-II, accepts notice on behalf of respondents-State of Jharkhand; Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of Jharkhand High Court through its Registrar General, and; Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of Jharkhand Public Service Commission. They have already received advance copy of the brief.

Let them file counter affidavit within six weeks.

Rejoinder, if any, two weeks thereafter.

Put up these cases on 06.12.2023.

In the interregnum, we further direct that all these petitioners would be allowed to fill-in their forms in physical mode and if they are found otherwise eligible, not on the question of the overage, then they shall be allowed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to take the examinations. However, the final result shall be subject to the outcome of these bunch of writ petitions, with a further stipulation that the petitioners shall not claim any equity on the basis of this orders passed by us in the interregnum.

Let a free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Piprawall for early compliance.

Urgent Certified copies as per rules.”

2013 wherein a Division Bench of this Court granted relaxation in age by modifying the cut-off date in Advertisement No.4 of 2013 which was issued for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioners have also brought on record Advertisement No.23 of 2022 issued for 32nd Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination for filling the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) wherein the upper age limit has been prescribed as on 1st August 2019. On the other hand, the respondent-JPSC has taken a position that it has no powers to provide age relaxation for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The High Court of Jharkhand by filing an affidavit has pleaded that 52 vacancies of Civil Judge (Junior Division) were notified by the High Court of Jharkhand vide Notification No.04/A dated 9th January 2020 and the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand was requested to initiate the process of recruitment for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) against the said vacancies. However, the State Government persisted with its stand that in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) also there should be 10% reservation for economically weaker section as provided under Departmental Resolution No.1433 dated 15th February 2019 and the deadlock continued for quite some time. It is stated that inspite of several communications from the High Court the State Government did not follow the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Malik Mazhar Sultan” case and, in the meantime, 86 more vacancies in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) occurred which were notified vide Notification No.74/A dated 11th April 2022.

7. The main plank of the petitioners to seek shifting of the cut-off date in the upper age limit is that after 2018 no advertisement was issued for the next five years for filing up the vacancies to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(S) No.5234 of 2023 refers to the judgment in “Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors.” (2006) 9 SCC 507 [LQ/SC/2006/289] to submit that the decision by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(S) No.6302 of 2017 shall not come in the way of the present petitioners because several other factors, such as, pandemic of COVID-19 were not existing on that day. Simply put, the submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that a judgment has to be read in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. From the materials on record, we gather that regular exercise for filling up the vacancies to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) could not be undertaken also on account of the matter regarding 10% reservation to economically weaker section remaining pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Rule 4 of the Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 provides that the Commission in consultation with the High Court may decide and notify the number of vacancies of Civil Judge (Junior Division/Munsif) from time to time as are required to be filled up by appointment to be made on substantive or ad-hoc basis and shall proceed to initiate the process of direct recruitment and invite applications from intending candidates eligible for appointment under these rules. In “Malik Mazhar Sultan” the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized timely steps to be taken for determination of vacancies, issuing the advertisement, conducting the examination etc. for making appointments on the posts in the district judiciary. The Hon’ble Supreme Court issued directions to all the State governments, Union Territories and the High Courts to frame and adhere to the time schedule so that every year vacancies that may occur are timely filled up. The petitioners have tried to set up a case based on the aforementioned direction in “Malik Mazhar Sultan” that the respondents who are in breach of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be permitted to take benefit of their wrong. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly submitted that the State/Public Service Commission which failed to follow the mandate under Rule 4 of the Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 cannot take a stand that it’s the bad luck of the petitioners that by afflux of time they have crossed the maximum age limit. It is submitted that the Court is required to interpret the provisions in the Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 in a manner so as to effectuate the object of selecting meritorious candidates and, therefore, the petitioners should be allowed to compete with the others. The submission made by the learned counsel is that the duty of the respondents is to select the best candidate amongst the lot and to achieve this objective suitable age relaxation can be granted in appropriate cases.

9. In “Sanjeev Kumar Sahay & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.” 2008 (2) JLJR 543 this Court allowed age relaxation by modifying the cut-off date in Advertisement No.13 of 2008 on the ground that in the last seven years no regular recruitment process for appointment on the post of Munsif was undertaken. In “Bhola Nath Rajak & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.” 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 73 this Court accepted the plea of the candidates who had crossed the maximum age limit in Advertisement No.4 of 2013 and shifted the cut-off date by 4 years backward. The learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that if examinations are not held periodically and the vacancies are allowed to accumulate there are chances that the candidates possessing inferior merit shall be appointed while the others who had in the meantime crossed the upper age limit would be left out.

10. This would evince no doubt that a little difference in the facts or some additional fact in a given case may make a lot of difference in the final decision even though two cases may seem to involve a similar question in law. Lord Morris cautioned in “British Railways Board v. Herrington” (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL), that there is always a peril in treating the words of a judgment as if they are words in a statute. More than 70 years before “Herrington”, Earl of Halsbury, L.C. made the observation of a general character which has now become a sort of maxim, that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. In India, a similar approach is found running through the judicial pronouncements. In “R.L. Jain v. DDA and Others (2004) 4 SCC 79 [LQ/SC/2004/343] the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that what is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made therein. In WP(S) No.6302 of 2017 with analogous cases titled “Krishna Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.” a coordinate Bench of this Court dealt with the issue of whether fixing of the cut-off date can be held arbitrary merely because examinations were not conducted in the last few years. This is a matter of record that by an order dated 23rd March 2020 passed in “Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020” and the subsequent orders passed in “In Re: cognizance for extension of limitation”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation and also under the special laws (both Central and State) due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. This is also common knowledge that due to Covid-19 pandemic all activities in the country had come to a grinding halt and that seems to be another reason why regular appointments to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) could not be made. This is a matter of record that some of the petitioners have crossed the maximum age limit just by 3-4 months and if the cut-off date is not shifted backward they shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. In the last two decades, for one reason or the other the regular recruitment exercise for filling up the posts in the district judiciary has not been undertaken and keeping in mind the plight of the aspirants this Court on the previous occasions took cognizance of the situation and modified the cut-off date. There is no timeline prescribed under the Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 but the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Malik Mazhar Sultan” has certainly been violated after 2018. The adherence to the rules is necessary but, strictly speaking, the present is not a case of non-adherence to the rules. While such is the state of affairs, the petitioners who crossed the upper age limit must be given relaxation so that they do not miss out an opportunity to seek appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, these writ petitions are allowed with the following directions:-

(A) The cut-off date 31st January 2023 fixed in Advertisement No.22/2023 is modified as 31st January 2019 and relaxation in age by modifying the cut-off date is not only confined to the writ petitioners but also to the other candidates who have already submitted their applications;

(B) The Jharkhand Public Service Commission is directed to process the applications of the writ petitioners and also other candidates who have also submitted their applications.

12. We further clarify that forty-nine other persons who have submitted their applications in hard copy shall also be permitted to participate in the recruitment exercise provided they come within the age limit as on 31st January 2019 and fulfill all other criteria under Advertisement No.22 of 2023. We further direct that the applications of 334 persons who according to the JPSC have crossed the upper age limit shall also be accepted provided they also come within the upper age limit as on 31st January 2019.

13. All the writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.