JUDGMENT 1. Heard on admission. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that rejection of petitioner's candidature in the matter of recruitment to Higher Judicial Services on the ground that petitioner has not been an Advocate for a period of not less than 7 years as on the last date of submission of application form as envisaged in Rule 33 (iii) of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2010") is illegal and based on misconstruction of the relevant Rule. It is argued that the petitioner was registered with the Bar Council of Rajasthan w.e.f. 27.08.2005. Pursuant to advertisement issued for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination 2013, the petitioner applied for the same as she was eligible. She was selected and appointed in service vide order dated 21.05.2015 and was also sent for training as required under the Rules, however, her appointment was cancelled vide order dated 27.10.2017. As the petitioner could not succeed, she again applied for resumption of her license which was resumed vide notice dated 28.05.2019 w.e.f. 28.05.2019. Pursuant to advertisement dated 05.01.2021 for recruitment to the post of District Judge Cadre, 2020, the petitioner again applied but this time her candidature has been rejected by holding her ineligible. It is the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner was eligible but now she has been held ineligible on a technical ground that she does not fulfill the requirement of Rule 33(iii) of the Rules of 2010. According to him, the petitioner had earlier practiced for more than 7 years as an Advocate and therefore, the requirement of the Rules is substantially complied with and subsequently her license was suspended as she was in Judicial Service, resumption of license in the year 2019 continues her practice as an Advocate. 3. It is not in dispute that while the petitioner was practicing as an Advocate, she was selected for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide order dated 04.07.2015. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's license/enrollment as an Advocate was suspended. However, later on, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 27.10.2017. Though, the petitioner took recourse to the remedy available under the law by filing a writ petition, her writ petition was dismissed on 09.05.2018 and SLP also came to be dismissed against the said order. However, later on, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 27.10.2017. Though, the petitioner took recourse to the remedy available under the law by filing a writ petition, her writ petition was dismissed on 09.05.2018 and SLP also came to be dismissed against the said order. Again when an advertisement was issued on 22.09.2018 for appointment to the post of District Judge Cadre, 2018 under the Rules of 2010, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she was not eligible having not fulfilled the eligibility criteria as contained in Rule 33(iii) of the Rules of 2010 against which a petition was preferred, which was, however, dismissed as having rendered infructuous vide common order dated 19.12.2019. 4. When fresh advertisement was issued on 05.01.2021 for recruitment to the post of District Judge Cadre, 2020, the petitioner again applied but her candidature has been rejected on the same ground that the petitioner has not been an Advocate for a period of not less than 7 years on the last date of submission of application form. This rejection is for the reason that the eligibility criteria as contained in Rule 33(iii) of the Rules of 2010 have not been fulfilled. Relevant Rule 33(iii) of the Rules of 2010 provides as below:- "33. Eligibility for direct recruitment.-For the purpose of direct recruitment under sub-rule (3) of Rule 31, applications shall be invited by the Court from those Advocates, who fulfill the following conditions of eligibility:- (i) xxxxxx (ii) xxxxxx (iii) must have been an Advocate for a period of not less than seven years on the last date fixed for receipt of applications." 5. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that in order to be eligible, mandatory requirement of having been an Advocate for a period of not less than 7 years on the last date of submission of the application form has to be fulfilled. On petitioner's own showing, as averred in the petition, upon her appointment as Judicial Officer vide order dated 04.07.2015, the petitioner got suspended her enrollment as an Advocate. She was removed from service vide order dated 27.10.2017 which was challenged, though unsuccessfully and the order of termination attained finality. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for resumption of her license on 04.01.2019 and her enrollment as an Advocate was resumed vide notice dated 28.05.2019 w.e.f. 28.05.2019. She was removed from service vide order dated 27.10.2017 which was challenged, though unsuccessfully and the order of termination attained finality. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for resumption of her license on 04.01.2019 and her enrollment as an Advocate was resumed vide notice dated 28.05.2019 w.e.f. 28.05.2019. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner's license remained suspended w.e.f. her appointment vide order dated 04.07.2015 and was resumed only vide notice dated 28.05.2019. Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India provides that in order to be eligible for appointment as District Judge, an Advocate has to be continuing in practice for not less than 7 years as on the cut off date and at the time of appointment as a District Judge. This constitutional requirement has been embodied in the provisions contained in Rule 33(iii) of the Rules of 2010. In the case of Dheeraj Mor v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Civil Appeal No. 1698/2020 and batch of petitions decided on 19.02.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held that the constitutional requirement is that in order to be eligible for appointment as District Judge, an Advocate has to be continuing in practice for not less than 7 years as on the cut off date and at the time of appointment as District Judge. The constitutional as well as legal requirement of an Advocate to be continuing in practice for not less than 7 years clearly means that as on the cut off date i.e. on the last date of submission of application form and at the time of appointment as District Judge an Advocate must be continuing in practice. The petitioner's license having remained under suspension for a long time, as mentioned hereinabove, which is an admitted position on record, the aforesaid requirement of law is not fulfilled. 6. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present is a case of extreme hardship because the petitioner had to get her license suspended upon her selection and appointment as Civil Judge vide order dated 04.07.2015 and thereafter, the petitioner was litigating before the Court of law, resulting in delay of resumption of license, therefore, the constitutional and legal requirement may be waived, such prayer cannot be accepted. There is nothing in the applicable Rules that the rule making authorities reserves power to relax the rigor of the Rule in cases of hardship. There is nothing in the applicable Rules that the rule making authorities reserves power to relax the rigor of the Rule in cases of hardship. That would not be even permissible in view of constitutional requirement as embodied in Article 233 of the Constitution of India. No directions can be issued by this Court to accept petitioner's application by treating her eligible in terms of the Rules on such grounds of hardship. 7. We, therefore, do not find any force in this petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed.