Recruitment rules and vested consideration rights: later age amendment could not defeat candidates under the original District Judge notification.

The age prescription for appointment as District Judge was treated as an additional qualification within the rule-making power and not as inconsistent with Article 233(2) of the Constitution, so it was valid. The later amendment was held to operate prospectively, not retrospectively, and therefore could not disqualify candidates who had applied and written the examination under the unamended notification. A plea based on age relaxation and prior litigation also failed, as it did not override the candidates' right to be considered under the rules in force when the recruitment process began. The selection was to continue on that basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment prescribing minimum and maximum age for appointment as District Judge was ultra vires Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the amended age prescription operated retrospectively so as to disqualify candidates who had applied and written the examination under the unamended notification. (iii) Whether the individual challenge based on age relaxation and prior litigation could defeat the petitioners' claims.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment prescribing minimum and maximum age for appointment as District Judge was ultra vires Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 233(2) prescribes the essential eligibility of seven years' practice as an Advocate or Pleader and recommendation by the High Court. The age prescription was treated as an additional qualification within the rule-making power and not as a contradiction of the constitutional requirement. The amendment reflected the accepted recommendation regarding judicial appointments and did not impair the constitutional mandate.

Conclusion: The amendment was held to be intra vires Article 233(2) and valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended age prescription operated retrospectively so as to disqualify candidates who had applied and written the examination under the unamended notification.

Analysis: The notification and the unamended rules permitted consideration of candidates below forty-seven years of age, with eligibility determined with reference to the notification conditions then in force. The later amendment came into force prospectively and did not contain any express or implied retrospective operation. The Court applied the settled principle that a candidate acquires a right to be considered under the rules and advertisement in force when the selection process commenced, and that such right cannot be defeated by a subsequent prospective amendment during the ongoing selection.

Conclusion: The amendment was held to be prospective and inapplicable to the ongoing selection process initiated under the 2007 notification.

Issue (iii): Whether the individual challenge based on age relaxation and prior litigation could defeat the petitioners' claims.

Analysis: The claim based on Rule 10(c) did not avail the over-aged candidate because even with relaxation the amended upper age limit could not be met. The plea of res judicata or constructive res judicata also failed because the earlier litigation concerned a different ground and did not decide the effect of the age amendment. The Court therefore held that the petitioners could not be excluded on the basis of the later amendment.

Conclusion: The individual objections were rejected, and the petitioners' right to be considered under the original notification was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to consideration for appointment as District Judge under the unamended notification, and the selection process had to be continued on that basis for the notified vacancies.

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate who has applied under an existing recruitment notification acquires a right to be considered in accordance with the rules and qualifications then in force, and a later amendment will not affect that right unless the amendment is expressly or by necessary implication retrospective.

---