@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.@mdashThese two writ petitions relate to selection to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in Tamil Nadu Judicial
Service, which is governed by Tamil Nadu Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment Rules),1995 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''). The
constitutionality of Rule 5 of the above Rules is in question.
2. In both the cases, the complaint is with regard to fixation of the maximum age limit of 38 years. The petitioner in W.P. No.18586 of 2003
belongs to Scheduled Caste community while in the latter writ petition W.P. No. 20771 of 2003, the petitioner is a Vanniyakula Kshatriya, which
is categorised as Most Backward Class.
3. The contention of Mr. R. Karuppan, learned counsel appearing for the MBC candidate as also Mr. Rajaram, learned counsel appearing for the
Scheduled Caste candidate, is that the outer age limit should not have been fixed for the candidates belonging to the reserved categories. They also
pointed out that when the notification was first issued for 31 candidates on 25.2.2003, it was correctly mentioned that the outer age limit is not
applicable to the reserved categories and that in the latest notification dated 3.5.2003, the maximum outer age limit beyond 38 years is fixed with
cut off date as 1.7.2003 and it is unconstitutional and illegal. Mr. R. Karuppan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.20771 of 2003, has
relied upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in (i) State of Kerala and Another Vs. N.M. Thomas and Others, , (ii) P.G.
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH V. FACULTY ASSOCIATION AIR 1998 S.C. 1764 (iii) Ajit Singh and
Others Vs. The State of Punjab and Others, and (iv) State of Bihar and Another Vs. Bal Mukund Sah and Others, .
4. The entire adjudication rests upon the interpretation of the constitutional provisions contained in Article 16(4) and the related Articles viz., 14
and 15(4) as every rule has to conform to the said constitutional provisions and the interpretation laid by the Supreme Court, which is the law of
the land under Article 141 of Indian Constitution.
5. On the subject of reservation, there are plethora of precedents and it has been held by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney etc. etc Vs. Union
of India and others, etc. etc., that the State is entitled to provide reservation but the same shall not cross beyond 50% and an exception can be
made only in rarest of rare cases. The State of Tamil Nadu has provided for 69% reservation by enacting Tamil Nadu Backward Classes,
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the
State) Act, 1993 (T.N. Act 45 of 1994) but that is under challenge before the Supreme Court. The said case is still pending. We need not go into
the details of the above reservation aspects including the quantum of reservation provided. We have to decide the only issue as to whether
categorisation of outer age limit for reserved categories can be claimed as of right and whether the rules prescribing the maximum outer age limit of
38 years with no relaxation to reserved candidates, is liable to be struck down as being unconstitutional.
6. When the first notification was issued on 25.2.2003, the number of vacancies mentioned was only 31 as against large number of vacancies to be
filled up and when the issue came up, number of vacancies were specified with other directives pointing out the rule where the minimum and
maximum age limits were prescribed and that is why in the later notification dated 3.5.2003, every defect was rectified. May be that is the reason
why the constitutionality of that portion of the Rule 5 of the Rules prescribing outer age limit of 38 years for all, including the reserved categories, is
assailed.
7. Rule 5 of the Rules reads,
5. Method of appointment, Qualification and age. - In respect of each category of posts specified in column (1) of the Schedule below, the
method of appointment and the qualifications shall be specified in the corresponding entries in columns (2) and (3) thereof:-
SCHEDULE
Category Method of Qualifications
Appointment
(1) (2) (3)
1... .. ..
2... .. ..
3... .. ..
4. CIVIL JUDGE By direct 1. ..
(Junior Division/ recruitment on 2. ..
Judicial Magistrate the basis of 3. Must be attained
First Class) written examina- the age of twenty-
tion / and Viva five years and must
voce Examina- not have attained
tion conducted the age of thirty-
by the Tamil eight years on the
Nadu Public 1st July of the year
Service Comm- in which selection
ission in accor- for a appointment
dance with the is made.
rules specified
in the annexures
to these rules.
8. As seen from the above, there is no relaxation with regard to age limit. But some concession was shown for the reserved categories in
prescribing the minimum marks for selection. The minimum marks for selection are 40 marks for open competition, 35 marks for Backward Class,
32 marks for Most Backward Class and Denotified Community and 30 marks for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
9. The Government, in its wisdom, while framing the Rules, has thought that having regard to the circumstances in the State of Tamil Nadu, the
relaxation of outer age limit for the post concerned is not necessary for any reserved community while providing concessions so far as minimum
marks for selection is concerned. Now the question for consideration is whether there is any imposition on the State to waive the maximum age
limit for the reserved categories. Strong reliance is placed by both the counsel on the decisions cited supra. But, in our considered view, those
decisions do not help to strengthen their arguments and in fact, the ratio decidendi laid down in the above cases runs contra to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
10. In STATE OF KERALA v. N.M. THOMAS (cited (i) supra), the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (1958) provided some
concessions in favour of the S.C. & S.T. candidates and those Rules were challenged as being unconstitutional but they were held as constitutional
by the Supreme Court. In so far as P.G. INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH v. FACULTY ASSOCIATION (cited (ii)
supra) is concerned, the point for consideration is whether the reservation can be provided for a single-post category. It was held in the negative
that such a reservation cannot be made. Analysing Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution and also referring to several previous
judgments, particularly the judgments rendered by the Constitutional Benches, including INDRA SAWNEY''s case (supra), it was held in
paragraph 33 that ''Article 15(4) is an enabling provision like Article 16(4) and the reservation under either provision should not exceed legitimate
limits'' and ''in making reservations for the backward classes, the State cannot ignore the fundamental rights of the rest of citizens.'' (emphasis is
ours). In AJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (cited (iii) supra), a constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has emphatically held that
reservation provisions contained in sub-Articles 4 and 4-A of Article 16 of the Constitution do not create any constitutional duty and there cannot
be any Mandamus issued to provide for reservation or for relaxation. The decision in STATE OF BIHAR v. BAL MUKUND SHAH (cited (iv)
supra) goes a step further in holding that the State cannot provide any reservation unless consented to by the High Court in the process of
consultation provided in Article 234 of Indian Constitution.
11. Going by the above legal principles enunciated by the Apex Court, which is the law of the land under Article 141 of Indian Constitution, we do
not see any merit in the contention that there cannot be any outer age limit fixed for reserved candidates. Hence, we do not see any constitutional
or legal infirmity in Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment Rules), 1995.
12. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, all the connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed. No costs.
