TN lawyer challenges District Judge exam notification in Madras HC, seeks permission from Supreme Court to appear for the exam

Home
News
Dealstreet
Interviews
Columns
Apprentice Lawyer
Viewpoint
Legal Jobs







LITIGATION NEWS
TN lawyer challenges District Judge exam notification in Madras HC, seeks permission from Supreme Court to appear for the exam




Shruti Mahajan
Jan 17, 2020, 9:34 AM IST







A lawyer based out of Tamil Nadu has moved the Supreme Court seeking permission to appear for the District Judge examination, while his petition challenging the notification reducing the upper age limit criterion remains pending before the Madras High Court.

The Madras High Court had issued a notification earlier reducing the upper age limit for the reserved candidates appearing for the District Judge exam from 48 years to 45 years of age. This notification was assailed and challenged by the petitioner before the Madras High Court.
During the pendency of the same, the petitioner, NS Sivakumar, sought the High Court’s permission to appear for the exam noting that the last day for submission of application is on January 31 this year. This plea, however was rejected by the High Court which brought the petitioner to the Apex Court.
It is his argument that, should the main writ petition challenging the notification be allowed and notification be quashed, the petitioner will have lost out on an opportunity to be considered for the post.
The notification under challenge was a second notification which was issued in continuation of the first after the candidates appearing for the exam in the first round failed to clear the exam. Thus, when the second notification inviting candidates for the exam was issued, the only aspect different was the upper age limit for reserved category candidates which was changed from 48 to 45.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner says,


The Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the Respondents without any valid reasons reduced the upper age limit 48 to 45 years which is contrary to their own previous notification in the same calendar year with same cut of date.
NS Sivakumar in his petition
The examination had not been conducted since 2013 despite there being vacancies, the petitioner adds. He further submits that the same affected the rights of the persons who expected to be considered for the post.
The High Court did not consider these aspects while rejecting the petitioner’s plea for interim relief, he says. Considering that the High Court has agreed to consider the writ assailing the notification, not allowing the petitioner to take the exam would be to deprive him of his fundamental rights, it is submitted

If the Petitioner is not granted the permission to apply and take up the exam, the writ petitions would become infructuous and the Petitioner would loss his valuable fundamental right.
NS Sivakumar in his petition
The petition is filed through Advocates D Ananda Selvam and Lakshmi Ramamurthy, drawn by Advocate V Vasanthakumar and settled by Senior Advocate Om Prakash Elanty

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME