Facts
The petitioners, practicing advocates/Additional Public Prosecutors with 22 years of standing, challenged their age-related disqualification for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) Examination, 2026.
Source reference: para. 2The notification dated 01.07.2026 set the age bracket at 35–45 years as of 15.07.2026.
Source reference: para. 2The petitioners argued that since no examination was held in 2025, they crossed the upper age limit through no fault of their own.
Source reference: para. 6They had previously appeared for the 2024 Exam (notified on 27.12.2024), which included vacancies anticipated up to 01.12.2025, but were unsuccessful.
Source reference: para. 5, 13They sought a one-time age relaxation to participate in the 2026 selection process.
Source reference: para. 1Issues
1. Whether the non-conduction of the DHJS Examination in the calendar year 2025 entitles the petitioners to a one-time age relaxation for the 2026 Examination.
Source reference: para. 3, 132. Whether the institutional delay in amending the recruitment rules and notifying vacancies violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Source reference: para. 9, 15Law Applied
Rule 7 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, which mandates the timely determination of vacancies and annual recruitment.
Source reference: para. 4Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, emphasizing the necessity of an annual judicial recruitment schedule.
Source reference: para. 8High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma (2022) regarding "real hardship" faced by candidates due to administrative gaps.
Source reference: para. 7Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Others (2025), which required specific amendments to the recruitment rules before any new notification could be issued.
Source reference: para. 11, 15Reasoning
The court rejected the petitioners' contention that an "institutional hiatus" occurred in 2025. It reasoned that the notification issued on 27.12.2024 had already accounted for all anticipated vacancies up to 01.12.2025, thereby fulfilling the objective of ensuring no vacancy remained unfilled during that period.
Source reference: para. 13-14The court found that the "gap" in 2025 was legally justified as the High Court was required to amend its Rules following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rejanish K.V. (decided on 09.10.2025).
Source reference: para. 15These amendments were finalized on 19.02.2026, making the 01.07.2026 notification the earliest legally permissible action.
Source reference: para. 15Since the petitioners had the opportunity to compete for 2025 vacancies under the 2024 notification but failed, and then turned overage before the 2026 notification, no "real element of hardship" or arbitrariness was established.
Source reference: para. 13, 16Holding
The Court dismissed the petition, holding that there were no "compelling circumstances" to grant age relaxation.
The Court answered that the respondents’ actions were neither discriminatory nor illegal, as the 2024 exam covered 2025 vacancies and the subsequent delay was due to mandatory statutory amendments.
Source reference: para. 14, 15The petitioners, having turned overage as of the relevant notification date, were ineligible to apply.
Source reference: para. 13All pending applications were disposed of.
Source reference: para. 18Original Court PDF
Indresh Kumar Gupta And Anr.vsHigh Court Of Delhi And Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in