Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 509 (JHR)

Sanjeev Kumar Sahay v. State of Jharkhand

2008-04-30

D.K.SINHA, M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
By Court.- Respondent No. 2 Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi issued Advertisement No. 13/2008 publishing in different newspaper dated 29.3.2008 invited applications from the candidates who were law graduates for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division Munsif) fixing the minimum age of 22 years and maximum age of 35 years for the candidates of general category on the cutoff date 31.1.2008. 2. Petitioners are the law graduates and most of them are regularly practicing as advocates in different courts including High Court in the Jharkhand State. the contention of the petitioners is that be• cause of the fixing of maximum age as 35 years for the general category candidates on the cut-off date i.e. 31.1.2008, petitioners who have crossed 35 years of age on 31.1.2008 shall be deprived of from appearing in the examination. Petitioners' further case is that no examination for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division Munsif) has been held after 2001. Because of the inaction on the part of the respondents, examination could not be held after 2001 and• it is only after seven years after creation of the State of Jharkhand, advertisement has been published. Writ petitioners, therefore, prayed that cut-off date fixed as 31.1.2008 for upper age limit as 35 years in respect of applicants of general category be substituted to 31.1.2002 by giving relaxation in age. 3. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether by not advertising and holding any examination between the year 2002 and 2007 the candidates who have crossed their age of 35 years in 2002 are entitled to be given relaxation in the age for appearing in the examination. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate, learned counsels for the Jharkhand High Court and the J.P.S.C. We have also heard learned Advocate General. 5. In All India Judges' Association Case (AIR 2002 SC 1753) it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by the Sr. Counsel Mr. F.S. Nariman one important aspect with regard to dispensation of justice, the huge backlog of undecided cases. One of the reasons which has been indicated was the inadequate strength of judges compared to the population of the country and inordinate delay in making appointments. The Supreme Court taking note of the ,aforesaid facts held: "25. Counsel Mr. F.S. Nariman one important aspect with regard to dispensation of justice, the huge backlog of undecided cases. One of the reasons which has been indicated was the inadequate strength of judges compared to the population of the country and inordinate delay in making appointments. The Supreme Court taking note of the ,aforesaid facts held: "25. An independent and efficient judicial system is one of the basic structures of our Constitution. If sufficient numbers of Judges are not appointed, justice would not be available to the people, thereby undermining the basic structure. It is well known that justice delayed is justice denied. Time and again the inadequacy in the number of Judges has adversely been commented upon. Not only have the Law Commission and the Standing Committee of Parliament made observations in' this regard but even the Head of the Judiciary, namely, the Chief Justice of India has had more occasions than ones to make observation in regard thereto under the circumstances, we feel it our constitutional obligation to insure that the backlog of the case is decreased and efforts are made to increase the disposal of cases.' Apart from the steps which may be necessary for increasing the efficiency of the Judicial Officers, we are of the opinion that time has now come for protecting' one of the pillars of the Constitution, namely, the judicial system, by directing increase, in the first instance, in the Judge strength from the existing ratio of 10.5 or 13 per 10 lakhs people to 50 Judges for 10 lakh people. We are conscious of the fact that overnight these vacancies cannot be filled. In order to have additional Judges, not only will be the posts have to be created but infrastructure required in the form of additional Court rooms, buildings, staff, etc., would also have to be made available. We are also aware of the fact that a large number of vacancies as of today from amongst the sanctioned strength remain to be filled. We, therefore, first direct that the existing vacancies in the Subordinate Courts at all levels should be filled, if possible latest by 31st March, 2003, in all the States. We are also aware of the fact that a large number of vacancies as of today from amongst the sanctioned strength remain to be filled. We, therefore, first direct that the existing vacancies in the Subordinate Courts at all levels should be filled, if possible latest by 31st March, 2003, in all the States. The increase in the Judge strength to 50 Judges per 10 lakh people should be effected and implemented with the filling up of the posts in a phased manner to be determined and directed by the Union Ministry of Law, but this process should be completed and the increased vacancies and posts filled within a period of five years from today. Perhaps increasing the Judge strength by 10 per 10 lakh people every year could be one of the methods which may be adopted thereby completing the first stage within five years before embarking on further increase if necessary." 6. As noticed above, in the State of Jharkhand neither any advertisement was published nor any examination was held for making appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division Munsif) since 2002. Many law graduates who were eligible to appear in the examination in between 2002 and 2007 have crossed the upper age limit of 35 years and thereafter have been deprived of their legitimate right to appear in the examination for the aforementioned post. Since no examination was held for about 6-7 years, most of the law graduates have been practicing as a lawyer in different courts. 7. The State of Jharkhand came into existence on 15th November, 2000 and after creation of State, cadre of judicial officers of the State of Bihar was provisionally bifurcated which led to acute shortage of judicial officers in the State of Jharkhand. Since there was dire urgent need to filling up the vacancies of the Jharkhand Judicial Service, the Government of Jharkhand in consultation with the High Court of Jharkhand framed provisional rule, namely, Jharkhand Judicial (Recruitment) Rules, 2001, so as to recruit and appoint members of Jharkhand Judicial Service. Although selection process was set in motion and list of selected candidates were sent to the Government for issuing appointment letters the Government of Jharkhand instead of issuing appointment letters raised certain objections with regard to reservation etc. Although selection process was set in motion and list of selected candidates were sent to the Government for issuing appointment letters the Government of Jharkhand instead of issuing appointment letters raised certain objections with regard to reservation etc. This led to filing of Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction upon the Government of Jharkhand to forthwith fill up the post of Munsifs and Judicial Magistrates. In that public interest litigation (Rajneesh Mishra VS. State of Jharkhand) a direction was issued to the Government for appointment of selected candidates so recommended by the High Court. The Government being dissatisfied with the order moved the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition being S.L.P. No. 1003 of 2002. It was only after the S.L.P. was dismissed by the Supreme Court with a direction to make appointment expeditiously, some of the posts of Munsifs were filled up. Thereafter, a draft rule was sent by the High Court in 2002 to the Government for approval and the Council of the Ministers approved the rule, but with the modification and condition that the entire selection process shall be undertaken by the Commission. In this way, since 2002, letters and correspondences were exchanged between the High Court and the Government for finalization of recruitment rules. The said Public Interest Litigation was finally disposed of in terms of judgment dated 6.1.2003 [reported in 2003(1) JLJR 349 ] with a direction to the Government to reconsider the matter and take fresh decision with regard to the provisions made in the draft rule and notify it within two weeks from the date of the judgment. In spite of all efforts, he took further two years for finalizing rule and finally rule was notified" called 'Jharkhand Judicial Services Recruitment Rules, 2004', published in Jharkhand Extraordinary Gazette No. 145 dated 4.4.2005. 8. Even after framing of Rules in 2005 and the requisition sent by the High Court, the posts were not advertised forthwith and it was only in the month of March, 2008, impugned advertisement was issued inviting applications and fixing eligibility criteria. 9. Admittedly, no examination was held for appointment on the post of Munsif for the last 7 years. Although, respondent State were under an obligation to hold examination and to fill up vacant posts every year. 9. Admittedly, no examination was held for appointment on the post of Munsif for the last 7 years. Although, respondent State were under an obligation to hold examination and to fill up vacant posts every year. Although, there is no compulsion, on the part of the Government to make appointment even vacancies are available but at the same time if the vacancies are allowed to accumulate and bulk appointments are made at a time, there may be possibility of candidates possessing inferior merit coming in. Whereas if examinations are held periodically the chances are that the best of the available candidates should be appointed. Apart from that, those law graduates, because of inaction on the part of the respondents in holding examination every year, started practicing as lawyer in different courts and they have gained Bar experience for more than five years. If age relaxation is given to those law graduates who became overage for non-holding of examination, then there shall be every chance of good experienced candidates may be appointed on the said post. 10. In the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and Others [ (2006) 9 SCC 507 ], the question that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was related lo the recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 2001 is as to the eligibility of some candidates from the point of view of age. In that case, the U.P. Public Service Commission (U.P.P.S.C.), was informed by letter of the Government of U.P. dated 23.11.2002 that it has been decided to make appointment of 347 candidates on the basis of competitive examination for recruitment for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for 2002 in the U.P. Judicial Service in three phases. The U.P.P.S.C. was requested to take prompt action and after completion of selection, sent its recommendations to the Government by 31.3.2003. By another requisition dated 29.7.2003, the U.P. Government informed the U.P.P.S.C. that the recruitment be conducted in two phases, first for 174 posts and later for 173 posts in the second phase for which another requisition will be sent. By third requisition dated 10.11.2003 sent by the Government, the U.P.P.S.C. was informed that on the basis of recommendation of the High Court, it was decided to hold selection together for 374 posts on the basis of competitive examination. By third requisition dated 10.11.2003 sent by the Government, the U.P.P.S.C. was informed that on the basis of recommendation of the High Court, it was decided to hold selection together for 374 posts on the basis of competitive examination. An advertisement dated 28.11.2003 was issued by the Commission for holding examination. In respect of age limit, it was provided in the advertisement that candidates must have attained age of 22 years and must not have attained the age of more than 35 years on 1.7.2004. However, because of some objections raised from the Interview Board, the relaxation in age limit of the candidates who were over-age on 1.7.2004 was rejected due to non-availability of relaxation of age. The aforesaid decision led to filing of various writ petitions by the excluded candidates before the High Court. The High Court of Allahabad held that the basic initiation of the recruitment process was when the first requisition dated 23.11.2002 was sent and thus, the recruitment year would be 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2003. Further, it was held that for determining whether a candidate was eligible in that recruitment year, it should be assumed that an advertisement pursuant to requisition dated 23.11.2002 was issued before 31.12.2002. The High Court held that all candidates who were less than upper age limit on 1.7.2003 would be eligible to appear at the 2003 recruitment. The matter ultimately came to the Supreme Court. After considering all recruitment rules, the Supreme Court observed: "21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1.7.2001 and 1.7.2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to• the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules. 22. The Rules postulate timely determination of vacancies and timely appointments. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules. 22. The Rules postulate timely determination of vacancies and timely appointments. The non-filling of vacancies for long not only results in the avoidable litigation but also results in creeping of frustration in the candidates. Further, non-filling of vacancies for a long time, deprives the people of the services of the judicial officers. This is one of the reasons of huge pendency of cases in the courts. 23. It is absolutely necessary to evolve a mechanism to speedily determine and fill vacancies of Judges at all levels. For this purpose, timely steps are required to be taken for determination of vacancies, issue of advertisement, conducting examinations, interviews, declaration of the final results and issue of orders of appointments. For all these and other steps, if any, it is necessary to provide for fixed time schedule so that the system works automatically and there is no delay in filling up of vacancies. The dates for taking these steps can be provided for on the pattern similar to filling of vacancies in some other services or filling of seats for admission in Medical Colleges. The schedule appended to the regulations governing medical admissions sets out a time schedule for every step to be strictly adhered to every year. The exception can be provided for where sufficient number of vacancies do not occur in a given year. The adherence to strict time schedule can ensure timely filling of vacancies. All the State Governments, the Union Territories and/or the High Courts are directed to provide. for time schedule for the aforesaid purposes so that every year vacancies that may occur are timely filled. All the State Governments, the Union Territories and the High Courts are directed to file within three months details of the time schedule so fixed and date from which the time schedule so fixed would be operational." Their Lordships further observed: "25. The "year of recruitment" has been held by the High Court as 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2003 after rightly coming to the conclusion that the subsequent second and third requisitions were• in continuation of the first requisition dated 23.11.2002. The process of recruitment was initiated by the appointing authority on 23.11.2002. The "year of recruitment" has been held by the High Court as 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2003 after rightly coming to the conclusion that the subsequent second and third requisitions were• in continuation of the first requisition dated 23.11.2002. The process of recruitment was initiated by the appointing authority on 23.11.2002. The year of recruitment has thus been rightly determined as 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2003, having regard to Rule 4(m). 26. Now, let us examine the second proviso to Rule 10. It stipulates that where a candidate was eligible in age to appear at the examination in any year of recruitment in which no such examination was held, he shall be deemed to be eligible in age to appear in the next following examination. The benefit of the proviso comes into operation if examination in any year of recruitment is not held so as to give relief to those candidates who would have been otherwise eligible in age but for not holding of the examination. There are two different categories dealt with under Rule 10 for the purpose of eligibility from age viewpoint. One-under the main part of Rule 10 and two-under the second proviso of Rule 10. Under the first part, the determining factor for age is the date of advertisement. Under the second part, determining factor for age is as on the year of recruitment. The age requirement under the main part of Rule 10 is on the requisite date following the year in which notification for holding examination inviting applications is published. The expression "notification" in the context means issue of advertisement inviting applications. Under the first part, therefore, the relevant date for determining age would be 1.7.2004 the advertisement having been issued on 22/28.11.2003. The proviso, however, makes eligible, from the viewpoint of age, even those candidates to appear in the next following examination, who were eligible in age if examination was held in year of recruitment. That is the reason that under the second proviso for determining age, the relevant fact is not the publication of notification as in the main part of Rule 10, but is age of a candidate to appear at the examination in any year of recruitment in which examination was not held. The candidate shall be deemed to be eligible in age to appear in the next following examination. The year of recruitment has been held to be 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2003. The candidate shall be deemed to be eligible in age to appear in the next following examination. The year of recruitment has been held to be 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2003. The examination in the year of recruitment was not held. The examination was held in March, 2004. In such a situation, candidates would be entitled to benefit of age requirement in terms of the second proviso. 11. On harmonious consideration of Rules in the concluding paragraph, the Supreme Court observed: "28. On harmonious consideration the Rules, it seems evident that Rule 10, its main part and the second proviso read with Rule 4(m), cater for) categories of candidates. The latter makes those eligible who are eligible in the recruitment year in which the process of recruitment is initiated by appointing authority. In this category, in the present case, would fall se who were eligible as on 1.7.2002. In main part of Rule 10, those who become eligible on 1.7.2004, would be eligible. In this view, those candidates) who were eligible on 1.7.2002 and also those who were eligible on 1.7.2004 would be eligible to be considered for appointment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division)." 12. In the case of The State of Andhara Pradesh vs. T. Ramakrishna Rao and others (1972) 4 SCC 830 , a question came before Supreme Court with regard to filling up of vacancies of the Munsif under the Andhra Pradesh Recruitment Rules. The fact of the case was that the respondents were Advocates enrolled by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In pursuant to the advertisement of 1968 issued by the State Public Service Commission. the respondent applied for the said post for which at the time there were sixty vacancies. One of the qualifications required of such applicants was that they should be below the age of 32 years on July 1, 1961. The Commission was to hold the examination on 7th & 8th May, 1969. Thereupon, respondents and others filed writ applications for a direction restraining the Commission from holding the written examination on the ground that the Rules does not provide for any written examination. In the meantime, Rule 5 of the Rules was amended and fresh application were invited. The Commission was to hold the examination on 7th & 8th May, 1969. Thereupon, respondents and others filed writ applications for a direction restraining the Commission from holding the written examination on the ground that the Rules does not provide for any written examination. In the meantime, Rule 5 of the Rules was amended and fresh application were invited. The question arose to whether earlier applications submitted by the applicants were invalid on the ground that they have been invited under an illegal rule and calling of fresh applications and holding of fresh examination in respect of all the vacancies is justified. While deciding the question, the Supreme Court held that those previous applicants who became debarred by reason of delay in holding the examination should not be disqualified from appearing in the examination. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed: "13. The directions given by the High Court being thus unsustainable have to be set aside. In our view, the Commission and the State were perfectly justified in fixing a date for the examination and calling for fresh applications for all the vacancies to enable the Commission to prepare an approved list under and in accordance with the provisions of the amended Rule 5. The only direction which becomes necessary is that if any of the respondents or other candidates who had applied in 1968 has by this time became age-barred by reason of the delay in holding the examination, he should not be disqualified from appearing in the examination if he was of the qualified age at the time when he had filed his application." 13. In the case of Dr. Ami La!" Bhat VS. State of Rajasthan and Others (1997) 6 S.C.C. 614 , the question arose with regard. to fixing the cut-off date under the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, the State. of Rajasthan prescribed its various recruitment rules that age limited for recruitment shall be determined on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of the applications. Deciding the issue, the Supreme Court held that fixing of cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post is in the discretion of the rule-making authority or the employer. Fixing an independent cut-off date, far from being arbitrary, makes for certainty in determining the maximum age. Deciding the issue, the Supreme Court held that fixing of cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post is in the discretion of the rule-making authority or the employer. Fixing an independent cut-off date, far from being arbitrary, makes for certainty in determining the maximum age. While deciding this issue, the Supreme Court however observed that power of relaxation is required to be exercised in public interest. For example, if other suitable candidates are not available for the post and the only candidate who is suitable has crossed the maximum age limit or to mitigate hardship in a given case, their Lordship observed:- '''11. In our view this kind of an interpretation cannot be given to a-rule for relaxation of age. The power of relaxation is required to be exercised in public interest in a given case; as for example, if other suitable candidates are not available for the post, and the only candidate who is suitable has crossed the maximum age-limit; or to mitigate hardship in a given case. Such a relaxation in special circumstances of a given case is to be exercised by the administration 2fter referring that case to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. There cannot be any wholesale relaxation because the ad• vertisement is delayed or because the vacancy occurred earlier especially when there is no allegation of any mala fides in connection with any delay in issuing an advertisement. This kind of power of wholesale relaxation would make for total uncertainty in determining the maximum age of a candidate. It might be unfair to a large number of candidates who might be similarly situated, but who may not apply, thinking that they are age-barred. We fail to see how the power of relaxation can be exercised in the manner contended." 14. Admittedly, no examination for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division Munsif) was held after 2001. As a matter of fact, a new rule was framed, namely, Jharkhand Judicial Services Recruitment Rules, 2004. Rules 4 and 5 of the said Rules are worth to be quoted herein below:- "4. Admittedly, no examination for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division Munsif) was held after 2001. As a matter of fact, a new rule was framed, namely, Jharkhand Judicial Services Recruitment Rules, 2004. Rules 4 and 5 of the said Rules are worth to be quoted herein below:- "4. From time to time, the Commission, in consultation with the High Court, may decide and notify the number of vacancies of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsifs) as are required to be filled up by appointment to be made on substantive or ad hoc basis, in accordance with these rules and shall then proceed to initiate the process of direct recruitment and invite applications from intending candidates eligible for appointment under these Rules. However, while deciding and notifying the vacancies, the Commission shall make it subject to the Act, Rules and Regulations' in force regarding the reservation of vacancies in posts and services under the State so that vacancies categorywise, reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, are included in the prescribed number in the notification issued by the High Court for this purpose. 5. Eligibility.- A candidate shall be eligible to be appointed as Civil Judges, Junior Division (Munsifs) under these Rules, provided:- (a) He is above the age of 22 years and below the age of 35 years as on the last day of January of the year in which applications for examination are invited; Provided that in the case of a female candidate, or candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe there shall be relaxation of the upper age limited by 3 years. (b) He is a graduate in law from a recognized University and enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961, and (c) He possesses sound health, bears good moral character and is not involved in, or related to any criminal case involving moral turpitude." 15. From bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is manifestly clear that there is no provision of relaxation of age except for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Proviso to Rule 5 give relaxation of upper age limit of three years in case of female candidates or the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 16. In the case of Subodh Kr. Jha VS. Proviso to Rule 5 give relaxation of upper age limit of three years in case of female candidates or the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 16. In the case of Subodh Kr. Jha VS. State of Jharkhand & Others (2005) 3 JLJR 622 , similar question raised for consideration before a bench of this court. In that case, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (the Commission) issued advertisement in 2005 inviting applications for appointment on the post of A.P.P. One of the conditions put in the advertisement was for upper age limit as on 31.1.2005 should not exceed 35 years for general category candidates. Similar plea was taken by the writ petitioners that State of Jharkhand although came into existence in November, 2000, no examination was held for filling up to the post of Public Prosecutor and so most of the eligible candidates were deprived of because of the fact that they have crossed the age of 35 years. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the decision the bench observed as under:- "5. There is no dispute that by virtue of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 the State of Jharkhand came into existence on 14th November, 2000. Admittedly, since the creation of the State of Jharkhand no examination was held for selection of A.P.Ps. and it is for the first time in 2005 the respondents have come with an advertisement. The candidates who were eligible for applying to the said post and now have crossed 35 years of age have certainly been deprived of the said post because of the inaction of the respondents. In such circumstance, relaxation in age IS to be given to those candidates who have crossed their maximum age limit. 6. Mr. Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission has produced before me copy of order dated 22.1.2003 passed in WPS No. 289/2003 and submitted that in similar circumstance a writ petition was dismissed by this court. From perusal of the order it appears that the Commission had issued advertisement for Combined Competitive Examination for appointment in Jharkhand Civil Service. The writ petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondents to give relaxation of three years in the upper age limit of 35 years for general categories. From perusal of the order it appears that the Commission had issued advertisement for Combined Competitive Examination for appointment in Jharkhand Civil Service. The writ petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondents to give relaxation of three years in the upper age limit of 35 years for general categories. The learned Single Judge of this court dismissed the writ petition holding that the power to relax age for appointment or the power to fix the maximum age for appointment or the power to fix cutoff date for appointment is vested with the Appointing Authority/State of Jharkhand. However, Mr. Piprwall, learned counsel, very fairly submitted that after dismissal of the said writ petition the respondent-State gave two years relaxation in age for appearing in the Combined Competitive Examination." 17. In the State of Bihar similar advertisement was issued in 1999 by the Bihar Public Service Commission for holding 25th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination, 1999. In that case also prayer was made by the writ petitioner for a direction to Commission to accept the form and fee of the candidates who became over-age due to non-holding of examination in terms of Bihar Civil Services (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955. A bench of the Patna High Court in terms of order directed the Commission to allow those persons to appear in the examination. Paragraph 7 of the case of Bishun Dutta Jha & Others vs. The B.P .S.C. & Others (1999)2 PLJR 215 is worth to be quoted hereinbelow:- 7. "The other grievance of the petitioners is that in terms of rules every year vacancy has to be notified and the steps have to be taken by the Commission for appointment. However, due to laches on the part of the respondents examination is not being conducted for a long period as a result of which many candidates (Advocates) who were eligible to apply during that period, have now become overage. This grievance of the petitioner appears to be genuine as the rules provided that the vacancy has to be notified each and every year and the Commission has to take steps for holding the competitive examination and if the same is not done then the candidates who became illegible (sic-eligible?) during that period cannot be allowed to suffer. This grievance of the petitioner appears to be genuine as the rules provided that the vacancy has to be notified each and every year and the Commission has to take steps for holding the competitive examination and if the same is not done then the candidates who became illegible (sic-eligible?) during that period cannot be allowed to suffer. As such by way of the interim order a direction is issued to the respondents to allow the candidates also who were illegible (sic-eligible ?) to apply in terms of the rules between the last advertisement and before issuance of advertisement no. 18/97 dt. 18.3.99 for 25th Bihar Service Competitive Examination. Accordingly, the Commission is directed to issue a corrigendum or advertisement to this effect. This interim order is subject to the final result of the case." 18. In another decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Rabindra Kr. Singh & Ors., (2000) 3 PLJR 231 , the writ petition was filed with regard to dispute of fix of upper age limit of 35 years for the general category candidates on the cut-off date i.e., 1.10.1998 for making appointments on the post of Medical Officer in the Bihar Health Service. A Bench of the Patna High Court observed:- "2. Recruitment to the Bihar Health Services (Basic Grade) is governed by the Bihar Health Services (Basic Grade) Recruitment Rules, 1984 framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 6(a) of the said Rules lays down (for the purpose of admission to the competitive examination and recruitment to the post) that a candidate must not have crossed 35 years of age or in the case of candidate belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes 40 years of age on the 1st day of October in which the competitive examination is to be held. From the impugned advertisement published in newspapers on or about 10.11.98 the upper age limit has been fixed at 35 years in the case of general category candidates, 37 years in the case of Backward class/Most Backward class category candidates, 38 years in the case of Backward Class (Females) and 40 years in the case of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates. It would, thus, appear that the age limits fixed are in accordance with the rules and in that sense no objection can possibly be taken. It would, thus, appear that the age limits fixed are in accordance with the rules and in that sense no objection can possibly be taken. The grievance of the petitioners, however, arises from the fact that during the last 9 years after 1989, no recruitment for the basic grade post of Medical Officer in the Bihar Health Service was made with the result that many candidates became over-age. This, if I may say, is the inevitable fall out of not making recruitment periodically. A candidate, who was not eligible on the cut-off date for the last recruitment on the ground of lesser age may become over-age when the next recruitment takes place and he may thus be deprived of the opportunity to seek appointment. Though no such minimum age limit has been fixed in the case of recruitment to the basic grade post in the Bihar Health Services under Rule 6, the Rules lay down certain qualifications, such as passing of the MBBS examination, internship etc. without which the candidate is not eligible to appear. A candidate qualified for recruitment at a comparative higher age may still find himself in the same position of being deprived of the opportunity to apply for appointment and, thus, being considered for the post. The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of not holding examination periodically resulting in denial of opportunity to the candidates, who may otherwise be suitable for appointment, in several cases. Reference may be made to one of them, State of Bihar & Ors. vs. The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union of 1986 & Ors., AIR 1994 Supreme Court, 736 : (1994)1 SCC 126 :1994(1) PLJR (SC)41. The case related to the appointment of Secretariat Assistants and had arisen from the State of Bihar itself. It is noteworthy that in the aforesaid case here was no statutory Recruitment Rule laying down holding of examination every year o~ so, as in the case of the Bihar Health Services (Basic Grade) Recruitment Rules. It would be useful to quote rule 4 of the said rules as under: "The Government shall indicate the Commission every year the number of vacancies to be filled in by direct recruitment....". 19. As noticed above, in the matter of recruitment of A.P.P., one-time relaxation was given which is evident from the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Subodh Kr. 19. As noticed above, in the matter of recruitment of A.P.P., one-time relaxation was given which is evident from the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Subodh Kr. Jha vs. State of Jharkhand (supra). Similarly, in the State of Bihar, one-time relaxation was given in the matter of appointment of Munsifs pursuant to the order passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Bishun Dutta Jha & Others vs. The B.P.S.C. and Others (supra). 20. Be that as it may, the question that falls for consideration is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly, when no examination was held for the last seven years and in the year 2008 only State Service Commission took up the matter and the impugned advertisement was issued and by that time, most of the candidates who were eligible to appear in the examination had crossed their age, it is fit and proper to give relaxation in age. 21. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State has very fairly submitted that there has been inordinate delay in framing of Rules, as a result of which, most of the Law Graduates eligible to appear in the examination have crossed their age. Learned Advocate General, therefore, submitted that it is a fit case where one-time relaxation be given to the candidates by fixing suitable cut-off date so that candidates who were eligible at least on the date when Rule was framed may not be deprived of from appearing in the examination. 22. Mr. S. Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the Commission, adopted the argument advanced by learned Advocate General and submitted that this relaxation cannot be treated as precedence for all the time. 23. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand High Court, referring to rule 15 of the Jharkhand Judicial Services Recruitment Rules, 2004, submitted that there is no provision of relaxation of age in the said rule. However, Mr. Singh submitted that having regard to the facts of the case and the fair stand taken by the learned Advocate General, there would be no difficulty in giving one-time relaxation. 24. We appreciate the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand High Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we have to decide what should be the cut-off date. 24. We appreciate the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand High Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we have to decide what should be the cut-off date. 25. As noticed above, in the case of All India Judges' Association (supra), the Supreme Court issued specific directive for filling up the existing vacancies in Subordinate Courts and in all levels latest by 31 5t March, 2003. A Division Bench of this Court also In Rajnish Mishra's case (P.I.L. Case) (supra), decided on 6.1.2003 directed the Government to finalize the Rule which was not finalized within time. It was only by Gazette notification dated 4.4.2005, Rule was published and notified. In our considered opinion, therefore, 31st March, 2003 shall be cut-off date for the reason that if the Supreme Court and the High Court orders would have been complied with, the Rule could have been published in March, 2003. 26. We, therefore, dispose of all these writ applications with the following directions:- i) The cut-off date fixed in the impugned advertisement fixing maximum age as 35 years shall be as on 31.3.2003. This relaxation in age shall not confine only to writ petitioners but also for all candidates who are otherwise eligible for the said posts. ii) Time for submission of applications is consequently extended till 17th May, 2008. iii) The respondents-Commission shall immediately inform about the age relaxation and cut-off date and also the last date of submission of application by publication in all the newspapers.