LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

High Court of Delhi vs. Devina Sharma

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 304Decided 14 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2022
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · A.S. Bopanna · Hima Kohli

Background

The Delhi High Court had notified 2022 examinations for the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS, upper age limit 32) and the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS, minimum age 35, reinstated in February 2022 after being removed in 2019). Candidates challenged these age rules before the High Court, arguing that because no DJS exam was held in 2020 or 2021 (for administrative reasons and the Covid-19 pandemic), candidates who would have qualified under the old age limits in those years were now unfairly barred; a similar grievance was raised for DHJS candidates affected by the reinstated 35-year minimum. The High Court's interim orders effectively postponed both examinations, and the High Court itself came to the Supreme Court challenging those interim orders while also proposing a one-time fix.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court rejected the constitutional challenge to a minimum age requirement for the Higher Judicial Service, holding that Article 233 of the Constitution only fixes eligibility (seven years as an advocate/pleader) and does not bar High Courts from separately prescribing age criteria as a matter of policy: a position consistent with the Shetty Commission's recommendations and prior precedent. However, taking a practical, equitable approach, the Court accepted the High Court's own suggestion to allow, as a one-time measure, candidates who would have qualified under the age limits applicable in 2020 and 2021 (years when no exam was held) to now sit for the 2022 DJS and DHJS examinations, with revised application and exam dates fixed by the Court itself.

Lesson Learnt

Courts can prescribe minimum or maximum age limits for judicial service recruitment as a matter of policy without violating Article 233, but where a pandemic or administrative lapse causes exams to be skipped for years, courts will look for a fair, one-time accommodation for candidates who lost their eligibility window through no fault of their own.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case