Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, four individuals belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), challenged a communication dated 31st January 2022 from the Bombay High Court informing them that they could not be considered for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class (CJJD and JMFC) because they were overage on the date of the advertisement and could not seek age relaxation on the ground of belonging to EWS. The petitioners had applied pursuant to an advertisement dated 1st February 2019. The High Court, by the impugned communication, stated that age relaxation is only available to backward classes as per the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, and not to EWS candidates. The petitioners argued that this amounted to discrimination and violated their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the rules clearly limit age relaxation to backward classes and that the EWS category is not a backward class. The court found no discrimination as the classification is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia. The petition was dismissed, and the communication was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Judicial Recruitment - Age Relaxation - Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 - EWS candidates not entitled to age relaxation as the rules only provide relaxation for backward classes - The court held that the rules do not discriminate against EWS candidates and the petition was dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) are entitled to age relaxation for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class under the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The communication dated 31st January 2022 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Age relaxation for judicial recruitment is limited to backward classes as per Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules
- 2008
- EWS category not entitled to age relaxation
- interpretation of Article 16 of Constitution
- no discrimination under Article 14
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 136
WRIT PETITION NO.2728 OF 2022
A.S. Chandurkar, Jitendra Jain
Mr.S. B. Talekar, Ms.Madhavi Ayyappan, Mr.Shubham Gurav, Mr.N.C. Walimbe, Ms.Kavita N. Solunke, Dr.Milind Sathe, Mr.Rahul Nerlekar
Ashwini Sanjay Kale, Anita Dada Hawaldar, Pallavi Shrikant Patil, Ramakant Gajendra Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra, The High Court of Bombay
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging communication denying age relaxation for EWS candidates in judicial recruitment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of communication dated 31st January 2022 and direction to consider them for the post of CJJD and JMFC with age relaxation.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were denied consideration for judicial post due to overage and inability to seek age relaxation as EWS candidates.
Issues
Whether EWS candidates are entitled to age relaxation under Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 for recruitment to CJJD and JMFC.
Whether denial of age relaxation to EWS candidates is discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that EWS candidates should be treated at par with backward classes for age relaxation, and denial amounts to discrimination.
Respondents argued that rules only provide age relaxation for backward classes, and EWS is not a backward class; classification is reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi
Age relaxation for judicial recruitment under Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 is limited to backward classes; EWS category is not a backward class and is not entitled to age relaxation. The classification is reasonable and does not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the communication dated 31st January 2022 whereby the petitioners have been informed that they cannot be considered for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class (CJJD and JMFC) since on the date of the advertisement they are overage and further they cannot seek relaxation of the age on the ground that they belong to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and not backward class.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed writ petition under Article 226 on 31st January 2022 challenging communication. Heard on 15th January 2024 and judgment pronounced on 20th February 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 14, Article 16
- Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008:
