![Report on High Court of Delhi vs. Devina Sharma [March 14, 2022]](https://legalvidhiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Screenshot-2023-12-14-132555.png)
| CITATION | CA 2016/2022 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 14 MARCH,2022 |
| COURT | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| APPELLANT | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| RESPONDENT | DEVINA SHARMA |
| BENCH | Hon’ble Dr. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, Hon’Ble Ms. Kohli |
Introduction
The case of High Court of Delhi vs. Devina Sharma, adjudicated on March 14, 2022, revolves around crucial issues concerning the age limits for participating in the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) and Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) examinations. The judgment, authored by Hon’ble Dr. Chandrachud, reflects the nuanced considerations and legal intricacies involved in addressing the concerns raised by the petitioners.
Background
The legal proceedings emanate from orders issued by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi on March 4, 2022, and March 8, 2022. The primary contentions relate to the validity of age limits stipulated in Rule 14(c) of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970, which underwent an amendment on February 11, 2022. This rule governs the eligibility criteria for candidates appearing in the DJS and DHJS examinations.
Issues at Hand
The central issues before the court include:
1. The upper age limit of 32 years for the DJS examination.
2. The minimum age requirement of 35 years for the DHJS examination.
The contention is primarily focused on the retrospective impact of the amendment on candidates who would have been eligible under the previous rules but, due to unforeseen circumstances, faced age restrictions in the revised examination schedule.
Chronology of Events
The High Court of Delhi had initially issued notifications for conducting the DJS and DHJS examinations on February 23, 2022. The last date for DJS form submission was set for March 20, 2022, with the examination scheduled for March 27, 2022. Similarly, for DHJS, the last date was March 12, 2022, and the examination was scheduled for March 20, 2022.
Rule 14(c) Amendment:
The bone of contention in the case revolves around the amendment to Rule 14(c) of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970. The original rule stated that a candidate should be eligible if not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January following the date of commencement of the examination. However, the amendment changed this to eligibility if the candidate is not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited.
Grievance of the Petitioners:
The petitioners argue that candidates who would have qualified under the previous age limit of 32 years for DJS are now ineligible due to the rescheduled examination date in March 2022. According to the amended rule, these candidates would have crossed the age of 32 on the 1st day of January of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited.
High Court’s Interim Orders:
In response to the petitions, the Division Bench of the High Court issued interim orders on March 8, 2022, directing the rescheduling of the date for receiving applications and postponing the examination date. The proceedings were scheduled to be listed on April 7, 2022.
Invocation of Article 136:
Aggrieved by the interim order, the High Court of Delhi invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, seeking resolution and clarification on the matter.
Supreme Court’s Intervention:
The Supreme Court, after granting leave on March 11, 2022, heard the arguments from both sides. The Court acknowledged the unique circumstances caused by the pandemic, preventing examinations in 2020 and 2021.
Acceptance of the High Court’s Suggestion:
The key development in the judgment is the acceptance of the High Court’s suggestion as a one-time measure. The Supreme Court accepted that candidates who would have qualified under the previous age limits during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 should be allowed to participate in the ensuing examinations.
Decision and Directions
1. DJS Examination:
– The last date for the receipt of DJS application forms is extended to April 3, 2022.
– The DJS examination is rescheduled to take place on April 24, 2022.
– A communication of the modified dates is directed to be placed on the website of the High Court of Delhi.
2. DHJS Examination:
– The last date for the receipt of DHJS application forms is extended to March 26, 2022.
– The DHJS examination is rescheduled to take place on April 3, 2022.
– A corrigendum indicating the above relaxation is directed to be uploaded on the website of the High Court of Delhi.
Analysis and Rationale
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, recognized the exceptional circumstances that led to the non-conduction of examinations in 2020 and 2021. The Court acknowledged the unintended consequences of the amendment to Rule 14(c) on candidates who would have been eligible under the previous rules. The acceptance of the High Court’s suggestion demonstrates a pragmatic approach to remedy the hardships faced by aspirants due to unforeseen disruptions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the judgment in the High Court of Delhi vs. Devina Sharma reflects the judiciary’s responsiveness to dynamic situations and its commitment to ensuring fairness in recruitment processes. The nuanced consideration of the retrospective impact of rule amendments and the accommodation of candidates affected by extraordinary circumstances underscore the judiciary’s role in upholding justice and equity. The directions provided by the Supreme Court aim to strike a balance between maintaining the integrity of recruitment processes and addressing the genuine grievances of aspirants.
Written by AISHWARYA NEVSE an intern under legal vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
