Indresh Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. High Court of Delhi

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the Respondents to grant a one-time age relaxation/exemption to the Petitioner for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) Examination, 2026, by deeming the Petitioner within the eligible age bracket;

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to accept the online/offline application form of the Petitioner for the DHJS Examination, 2026, and permit the Petitioner to participate in all stages of the selection process; and

(iii) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble

2. The petitioners are practicing advocates/Addl. Public Prosecutors working in the prosecution department of the Government of NCT of Delhi, and have a standing of 22 years. On 01.07.2026, the respondent No.1 published a notification for conducting the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination-2026 (‘DHJS Exam’). As per the age eligibility prescribed for the examination, the age of candidate must not be less than 35 years and more than 45 years on 15.07.2026 i.e., the last date for applying for the examination. It is stated that the respondent no.1 has been regularly holding DHJS Exams every year from 2019, except in 2025 which was not held, against the legitimate expectations of eligible candidates preparing for the same.

3. The petitioner no.1 made a representation to the competent authority i.e., the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court and the Principal Secretary, Law & Justice, GNCTD through e-mail and speed post on 02.07.02026, seeking one time age relaxation/ age protection for participating in the DHJS Exam-2026 on account of non-holding of DHJS Exam-2025. The petitioner no.2 also made representation to the respondents through e-mail. However, the competent authority has not communicated any decision on the representation of petitioners till date.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that Rule 7 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 explicitly contemplate regularly and timely determination of vacancies and the conducting of competitive examinations on an annual basis. Rule 7(2) thereof dictates the rotation of vacancies by way of promotion, limited competitive examination (LCE) and direct recruitment. Thus it is the institutional obligation driven by the continuous flow of statutory roster, which has been elevated to strict legal mandate.

5. It is stated that the petitioners have been diligently preparing for the DHJS Exam-2025 and met all the requisite statutory parameters, including being well within the maximum prescribed age limit throughout the calendar year 2025. The petitioner No.l was a selected candidate in the year 2023 and his name was kept in the waiting of the selected candidates due to nonavailability of the vacancies for general category candidates.

6. It is submitted that for reasons purely administrative and internal to the respondents, no examination was notified or conducted in the calendar year 2025, creating an unscheduled institutional hiatus. Due to the complete omission/non-publishing of notification for DHJS Exam in the year 2025, the petitioners crossed the maximum age cut-off and have been rendered technically “time-barred” for the 2026 Exam. The petitioners have been excluded from participating in the public selection process solely due to an institutional delay, which is not attributable to any choice or omission of the petitioners.

7. He submits that it is a settled position of law that candidates cannot be penalized or have their future prospects curtailed due to structural pauses or prolonged delays in institutional recruitment machinery. As explicitly echoed by this Court in Sachin & Ors. v. CRPF (2023), the lethargy or delay of a state organ in publishing annual vacancies cannot act as a weapon to destroy the legitimate expectations of willing aspirants. According to him, the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma (2022), wherein when the recruitment process encountered a gap of two calendar years, the Court categorically held that a "real element of hardship" is faced by candidates who cross the age limit in the interim through no fault of their own. On an exact parity of reasoning, a one-time relief must be extended to the 2026 Batch.

8. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr v. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors wherein the absolute necessity of an unhindered annual schedule for judicial recruitments to ensure access to justice and protect the rights of eligible aspirants was highlighted.

9. He states that by failing to issue notification for the DHJS Exam- 2025 in the year 2025 and subsequently denying a one-time relaxation in 2026, the respondents· have created a highly arbitrary sub-classification. A candidate who was fully eligible to appear for the examination in 2025 is permanently disqualified in 2026 without ever getting a single opportunity to compete, which completely violates the mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners who were preparing for the aforesaid examination throughout the year 2025 have crossed the upper age limit for the DHJS Exam-2026 without any fault, inaction or negligence on their part. He submits that if the petitioners are not allowed one time age relaxation they would suffer irreparable loss; whereas if they are allowed they would only get a chance to compete the other candidates and no prejudice will ever be caused to anyone.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that on 27.12.2024, a notification was issued by the respondents for DHJS Exam-2026 contemplating filling up of existing vacancies till 01.12.2025. In other words, all vacancies that arose up to 01.12.2025 formed part of the notification dated 27.12.2024. According to her, as such, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners in the respondents not conducting the DHJS Exam in the year 2025. In any case, the notification dated 27.12.2024 was issued merely four days before the commencement of the year 2025.

11. She submits that pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3947/2020 titled Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Others (decided on 09.10.2025), the Rules were amended by the respondents on 19.02.2026. In terms of the notification dated 15.07.2026, the eligibility of the candidates has to be seen as on the date of the notification, i.e., 15.07.2026, by the time, they became over aged, the petitioner no.1, became over aged on in September, 2025.

12. Hence, she states that both the petitioners are ineligible and as such the petition should be dismissed.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. This we say for the reason that all anticipated vacancies till 01.12.2025, were already included in the notification dated 27.12.2024. Though the petitioners had applied for the same, they were unsuccessful. We note that the date of birth of the petitioner No. 1 is 23.09.1980 and the petitioner No. 2 is 31.05.1981. When the respondents issued the notification for DHJS Exam-2026 on 01.07.2026, the petitioners had already turned overage.