JUDGMENT
Devinder Gupta, J.
1. The petitioners have challenged legality and validity of Rule 14(c) and Rule 18 of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 and seeks direction against respondents to enhance the maximum age limit from 32 years to 35 years for being eligible to appear in the Delhi Judicial Services examination and to give benefit of reservation of 27% to the other backward classes, in view of the guide-lines laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors. by amending the Rules, more particularly Rules 14-C and Rules 28.
Rules 14 and 28 of the Rules read as under:-
14. A candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination if he is:
(a) a citizen of India:
(b) a person who has practiced as an Advocate for not less than 3 years on the last date prescribed for the submission of application; and
(c) not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January following the date of commencement of examination.
28. Recruitment made to the service by competitive examination shall be subject to orders regarding special representation and other concessions for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers issued by the Central Government from time to time.
2. Rule 28 of the Rules does not provide for reservation to other backward classes but do make recruitment to the service subject to the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time regarding special representation and other concessions for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers. It is silent as regards special representation to the other backward classes (OBC). Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution is an enabling provision which empowers the state to make reservations but nothing stated therein compels the state to make reservation. Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1999 (5) SCALE 556 relying upon the earlier decision of Constitution Bench in C.A. Rajendran v. UOI 1968 (1) SCC 721 and referring to the decision in Indira Sawhney’s case (supra) held that Clause (4) of Article 16 was only an enabling provision and is not a fundamental right and it doe snot impose any constitutional duty. It only confers a discretion on the State. We are informed that request made by the Central Government in its letter dated 21.12.1994 to Delhi High Court for suitable amendments to be made in the Rules was received but despite such request the High Court did not concur to accede to such requests. In the absence of any concurrence by the High Court there cannot be any amendment to the Rules for which a reference be made to another decision of Supreme Court in A.C. Thalwal v. High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. . In this view of the matter neither the challenge to the validity of Rule 28 is tenable nor a direction can be issued as prayed for to carry out amendment in the said Rule.
3. 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 is entitled to fix different age limit for entry to different services. There is no rational behind in 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.
4. Similar challenge to the aforementioned two rules was negatived by decisions of this Court in C.W. 2160/96 Vinod Kumar v. The Registrar Delhi High Court decided on 24.5.1996; C.W. 2994/96 AMU Lawyers Forum v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 13.8.1996; C.W. 4366/99 Mukesh Kumar v. Lt. Governor, Delhi decided on 15.9.2000; C.W. 2839/2000 Mahesh Chander Verma v. Governor of Delhi decided on 12.9.2001 and CW 4369/2000 R.K. Poswal v. UOI and Ors. decided on 9.8.2000.
5. In view of the above there is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed.