JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for age relaxation to the writ petitioners in the recruitment of District Judge/Jharkhand Higher Judicial Service, as published by the Jharkhand High Court vide Advertisement No.01/2022/Apptt., in which, the age limit prescribed to fill up the form was 45 years and the cut-off date is to be calculated on 31st January, 2021 on the ground that no examination was held/conducted by the High Court in the year, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 due to institutional reason and due to the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioners, as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that they are being deprived from chance of consideration for their candidature for appointment as District Judge, which has been sought to be filled up by way of an advertisement published on 24.03.2022 to fill up 22 vacancies from eligible Advocates from the Bar. The writ petitioners have claimed that now they have been deprived from participating in the process of selection since they have already crossed the maximum age of 45 years as on 31.01.2021. The writ petitioners, therefore, are before this Court for relaxation of age on the ground that the examination for the said post could not have been conducted for the year, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 due to institutional reason and due to the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic, therefore, a direction has been sought for relaxation of their age so that they have been allowed to participate in the process of selection for consideration of their candidature. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of High Court of Delhi Vrs. Devina Sharma, in Civil Appeal No.2016 of 2022. 4. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. has appeared for the respondent no.2.-State of Jharkhand. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as also the documents appended thereto. 6. It appears from the aforesaid advertisement that the advertisement has been published to fill up 22 vacancies for the post of District Judge from the Bar. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as also the documents appended thereto. 6. It appears from the aforesaid advertisement that the advertisement has been published to fill up 22 vacancies for the post of District Judge from the Bar. The eligibility condition as contained in the said advertisement so far as the age bar is concerned is that the candidate has to be above 35 years but below 45 years as on 31st January, 2021. The upper age limit is relaxable by three years in case of S.C./S.T. candidates. The grievance raised by the writ petitioners that they have crossed the maximum age of 45 years as on 31st January, 2021. The further grievance is that they have been deprived from participating in the process of selection because when they were eligible, i.e., at the age of below 45 years, since no examination could held for the year, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, to buttress his argument, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of High Court of Delhi Vrs. Devina Sharma (supra). 8. This Court is to consider as to whether non-conducting of an examination for a year could be a ground for issuing a direction for relaxation of age of candidate? 9. The position of law is well settled as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 614 , wherein it has been laid down that non-conducting of examination cannot be a ground for seeking relaxation in age by one or the other candidates, for ready reference, paragraphs-10, 11 and 12 of the aforesaid judgment are required to be referred herein, which read as under:- “10. It is next contended on behalf of the appellants/petitioners that under all the service rules concerned there is a provision for age relaxation. In Rule 11(A) of the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, there is a provision for age relaxation by 5 years by the Government in consultation with the Commission. It is next contended on behalf of the appellants/petitioners that under all the service rules concerned there is a provision for age relaxation. In Rule 11(A) of the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, there is a provision for age relaxation by 5 years by the Government in consultation with the Commission. There is also Rule 35 in the said Rules which gives a general power to relax rules in exceptional cases where the Government is satisfied that it is necessary, inter alia, to relax any provision of these Rules with respect to age or experience of any person and this can be done with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. It is urged that in the case of all those persons who are adversely affected because the advertisement for recruitment is issued later than the occurrence of the vacancy, corresponding age relaxation should be given to all candidates. In other words, what is contended is that if on the date when the vacancy occurred, the candidates were within the maximum age prescribed by reference to the cut-off date, then if the advertisement is delayed, their age should be considered with reference to the cut-off date of 1st January following the date of occurrence of vacancy. For example, if the vacancy has occurred on 1st of April of a given year, and the applicant would be within the maximum age on the 1st of January of the following year, then such a candidate will be considered as eligible even if the advertisement is issued not in April of that year but say February of the following year. All the candidates will get age relaxation of one year. 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 after referring that case to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Such a relaxation in special circumstances of a given case is to be exercised by the administration after referring that case to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. There cannot be any wholesale relaxation because the advertisement 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. 12. In the premises we do not see any reason to set aside the cut-off date fixed by the relevant rules. The judgments of the Division Benches of the Rajasthan High Court insofar as they strike down 1st of January of the following year as the cut-off date for determining the maximum age of a candidate for selection, require to be set aside.” 10. The sole ground taken by the writ petitioners herein since is non-conducting of examination for a particular year and as such, as per the settled position of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. Ami Lal Bhat (supra) that there cannot be any relaxation of age. Furthermore, the date of examination has already been notified to be held on 4th September, 2022 and all the arrangements, i.e., admit cards have been issued, centers have been fixed, and examination is to be held on 04.09.2022, therefore, at this juncture, if any direction is issued in favour of the writ petitioners, the same will disrupt the entire process of selection. It further requires to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) & Anr. Vrs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service commission & Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 703 , wherein, time schedule has been provided for filling up of the vacancies in the different cadre of judicial services, as would appear from paragraph-7 thereof. 11. It further requires to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) & Anr. Vrs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service commission & Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 703 , wherein, time schedule has been provided for filling up of the vacancies in the different cadre of judicial services, as would appear from paragraph-7 thereof. 11. This Court, keeping the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in consideration has come out with an advertisement and at the stage, when the entire process of selection is at the fag end, does not consider it a fit case to pass any positive direction. 12. This Court, however, has also considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in High Court of Delhi Vrs. Devina Sharma (supra). In the aforesaid case, as would appear from the order itself, the High Court of Delhi issued notifications for conducting examinations for DJS and DHJS on 23rd February, 2022. For the DJS, the last date for submission of forms was 20th March, 2022 and the examination was scheduled to take place on 27th March, 2022. For DHJS, the last date for submission of forms was 12th March, 2022 while the date of the examination was 20th March, 2022. The issue arising in that case was pertaining to Rule 14(c) of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970. The provision of Rule 14(c) (un-amended Rule) stipulated that a candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination if he is not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January following the date of commencement of the examination. The above rule was amended on 11th February, 2022 stipulating therein that a candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination if he is not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January of the year in which the applications are invited. There was a material change in the un-amended provision of Rule of 14(c). In the un-amended Rule, a candidate was to be not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January following the date of commencement of the examination. There was a material change in the un-amended provision of Rule of 14(c). In the un-amended Rule, a candidate was to be not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January following the date of commencement of the examination. While, in the amended 14(c) Rule, the candidate to be eligible to appear in the examination, if he is not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January of the year, in which, the applications for appointment are invited. Therefore, the petitioners raised a grievance before the High Court of Delhi that the candidates who would have qualified in terms of the upper age limit of 32 years for DJS, as stipulated in Rule 14(c), would now cease to be eligible by virtue of the fact that the examination is being held in March, 2022 since in terms of the amended Rule, the candidate is required to be at the age of 32 years on the 1st day of January of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court passed an interim order on 8th March, 2022 directing therein that the date for receiving applications shall be rescheduled to a date after the next date of hearing and the date of holding the examination shall also be postponed. The Delhi High Court by taking a decision on the Administrative side had preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order for transferring the lis pending before the High Court to the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself to render a full and complete adjudication of the proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court finally considered the judgment passed in Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has passed the direction in order to ensure that the recruitment process for the judicial service is conducted on schedule every year, subject to the rules of each High Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has considered that no examination for recruitment of DJS for the year, 2020 and 2021 was held. The Hon’ble Apex Court has considered that no examination for recruitment of DJS for the year, 2020 and 2021 was held. The examination for the year, 2020 could not be held due to the Covid-19 Pandemic and as such, the relaxation has been suggested to be granted by way of one time exercise and accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court has passed an order, as has been held at paragraph-29, permitting the High Court as a one-time measure to allow those candidates who were within the age cut-off of 45 years during the recruitment years, 2020 and 2021 to participate in the ensuing DHJS examinations. However, in the case in hand, the fact is quite different as there is neither any amendment in the rule governing the field nor is any interim order, as was passed by the Delhi High Court on 04.03.2020, which was prior to the scheduled date of examination to be conducted on 28.03.2022. 13. In the present case, the examination is scheduled to be held on 4th September, 2022. If any order will be passed allowing the writ petitioners to participate in the process of selection, the result would be that the entire examination which is scheduled to be held on 4th September, 2022 would have to be deferred. As such, at this belated stage, when all the preparations have been completed for conduct of the examination, this Court does not find any reason for interference. 14. In the result, the instant petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.