Eligibility conditions under judicial service rules are separate; age cannot be merged into educational qualification through punctuation.

Rule 14 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 was construed as prescribing three separate eligibility conditions: citizenship, advocacy qualification and age. The court held that the age requirement in clause (c) could not be read into clause (b) as part of the educational qualification, because the wording of the rule did not support that construction. Reliance on punctuation in Entry 11A of List III was rejected since punctuation cannot displace the plain meaning of the constitutional and statutory text. On that reading, the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the eligibility conditions in Rule 14 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 were independent and whether the age requirement in clause (c) could be read as part of the educational qualification in clause (b) by relying on the punctuation in Entry 11A of List III of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Rule 14 sets out three separate eligibility conditions: citizenship, advocacy qualification, and age. The wording of the rule does not permit the age stipulation to be treated as an extension of the educational qualification clause. The reliance placed on punctuation in Entry 11A was rejected because punctuation cannot override the constitutional and statutory scheme or alter the plain meaning of the text. The entry was understood as a complete and comprehensive sentence, and the rule was construed on its plain terms.

Conclusion: The age requirement in clause (c) is independent of clause (b), and the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.

---