JUDGMENT
Devinder Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner Forum through its President, espousing the cause of certain section of Advocates, who claims to be aspirants and otherwise eligible for Delhi Judicial Service (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Service’) has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following directions:
i) to direct respondent No.2 to enhance the upper age limit for appearance in the Delhi Judicial Service Exam, so that the incumbents or aspirants, who are otherwise eligible could appear in the said Exam.
ii) to direct respondents No. 1 & 2 to declare 27% quota for the reservation of Other Backward Classes (OBC s) so that the incumbents who belong to other Backward Classes could get the benefit of such reservation provided by law.
ii) to restrain respondent No.2 from holding said Exam, till the enhancement of upper age limit and till the declaration of reservation for the candidates falling under the category of OBC s to maintain uniformity amongst the judicial services conducted by the other States Public Service Commissions.”
2. It is claimed that almost all State Public Service Commissions have enhanced the upper age limit from 32 to 35 years to appear in the Judicial Service Examination of the respective States but correspondingly no increase has been made by the respondent in the upper age limit for the Delhi Judicial Service Examinations, which are scheduled to be held from 16th to 18th August, 1996, pursuant to adverlisement dated 16.5.1996 which appeared in the Employment News 25-31 May 1996. This act of not enhancing the upper age limit is arbitrary and discriminatory, more particularly when the other States have enhanced the upper age limit, in order to bring uniformity amongst Judicial Services Examinations conducted by different State Public Service Commissions, keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, , emphasising minimum three years legal practice a must for entry into Judicial Service. It is also alleged that reservation to Other Backward Classes is available in most of the services but no such reservation
to Other Backward Classes (OBC s) is made available in Delhi Judicial Service, which has ultimately resulted in manifest injustice and violation of their legal rights. It also amounts to flouting the mandate of the Government in making reservation to the extent of 27% for OBC s. The challenge is also to the fixation of 1st of January, following the date of Examination, as the cut off date, for determining the qualifying age.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the submission, we find no force therein. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The challenge to paragraph (c) of the eligibility criteria in the advertisement in question, envisaging the relevant date for determining the upper age limit as 1st of January following the date of commencement of examination on the ground that it is arbitrary and irrational was negatived by this Court in Vinod Kumar v. The Registrar, Delhi High Court, CW 2160/96 decided on 24.5.1996, holding:
“It is in consonance with Rule 14(c) of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970; which says that a candidate, to be eligible to appear at the examination, should not be more than 32 years of age, as on the first day of January following the date of commencement of the examination; that the impugned Clause (c) has been inserted in the advertisement. Competency of the High Court to fix any date as a cut off date for determining the eligibility is not disputed. Advertisement has mentioned a fixed cut off date namely first day of January, as the date, with reference to the date of examination, for determining the eligibility. The date is same for all. There is no arbitrariness in the respondent fixing first day of January as the date for determining the eligibility. There is no uncertainty of this date. It has reference to the date of examination, which is also certain. The advertisement also specifies the dates of examination. Apprehension of the petitioner that examination, for many unforseen circumstances might be postponed, for which the date of examination will not remain certain, are unfounded. Reliance on Rekha Chaturvei v. University of Rajasthan and Ors., 1993 Suppl. (3) S.C. Cases 168, is totally misconceived. There is certainty of the date with reference to which the requisite qualification is to be judged. The person who as of today are eligible to appear in examination cannot become ineligible merely on the ground that for any reason whatsoever the examinations are postponed. It also cannot be said that when two separate, but definite dates are mentioned in the advertisement, one for computing the years of practice as an Advocate and the other for computing the upper age limit, the advertisement would become arbitrary or irrational. It also cannot be insisted upon by the petitioner that even for computing the upper age limit, the same date ought to have been fixed which is prescribed for computing the years of practice as an Advocate.”
5. One of us (Devinder Gupta, J.) was a member of the Bench which decided Vinod Kumar’s case (supra). We are not persuaded to take a different view in this case.
6. As regards the other plea, namely, increase in the upper age limit from 32 years to 35 years for General Category Candidates, suffice it to say that Rule 14(c) of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 prescribes the upper age limit of 32 years. Of course in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Casts/Schedule Tribes, Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers, the upper age limit is relaxable maximum by 5 years. The Rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The same are not under challenge in this petition. The mere fact that in other States upper age limit is higher than in Delhi cannot be a ground for challenge. Competent authority will be entitled to fix different age limits for entry to different services. There is no rational behind the submission that since there is requirement of three years practice at the Bar, the upper age limit deserves to be enhanced by three years to make it 35 years.
7. The last point taken is the absence of reservation to the Other Backward Classes. It is urged that by not providing for any reservation in the advertisement for OBC s, the respondents have acted arbitrarily since such reservation is available in other States. Rule 28 of the Delhi Judicial Service, 1970 does not provide for reservation to OBC s. It reads:
“28. Recruitment made to the service by competitive examination shall be subject to orders regarding 5 special representation and other concessions for the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes and Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers issued by the Central Government from time to time.”
8. The Rule does make the recruitment to the service subject to the orders issued by the Central Government from time, to time regarding special representation and other concessions for the S.C./S.T., Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers. It is silent as regards special representation to OBC s. In the writ petition there is no challenge made to legality and validity of Rule 28. This Rule 28 will not ipso facto have the effect of making applicable any other orders issued by the Central Government regarding special representation and other concessions to any other category or class including OBC s. Orders, if any, issued from time to time pertaining only to the four categories, mentioned in Rule 28, would apply and recruitment to Service shall be subject to such orders. There is no question of discrimination when respondents have not thought it proper not to include the OBC s in Rule 28 of the Rules. When Rules are not under challenge the petition must fail for the simple reason that the advertisement has been issued strictly in consonance with the Rules.
9. Dismissed.