Delhi High Court Upholds DHJS 2026 Notification, Says No Separate Examination Was Required In 2025; Refuses Age Relaxation To Overaged Aspirant
The Court held that the 2024 recruitment notification had already covered anticipated vacancies up to December 1, 2025, found no illegality in skipping a separate 2025 examination.
The Delhi High Court has held that the non-conduct of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) Examination in 2025 did not prejudice eligible candidates since the recruitment notification issued in December 2024 had already included all anticipated vacancies up to December 1, 2025. The Court consequently refused to grant a one-time age relaxation to a candidate who had crossed the upper age limit before the issuance of the DHJS Examination, 2026 notification.
The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the upper age eligibility condition prescribed in the DHJS Examination, 2026 notification and seeking permission to participate in the examination despite having crossed the age limit.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “…all anticipated vacancies till 01.12.2025, were included in the notification dated 27.12.2024. Though the petitioner had applied for the same, he was unsuccessful. We note that the date of birth of the petitioner is 03.10.1980. When the respondent no.1 issued the notification for DHJS Exam-2026 on 01.07.2026, the petitioner had already turned over-age”.
“We must state that the objective behind conducting the DHJS Exam every year is that no vacancy that arises should remain unfilled. The notification for DHJS Exam-2024 dated 27.12.2024 included all anticipated vacancies till 01.12.2025, i.e., for the year 2025 also. Therefore, as per the respondents, there was no requirement to conduct the examination again in 2025. The notification dated 27.12.2024 fulfilled the said objective, and as such, the decision of the respondents to not conduct an examination again in 2025 cannot be said to discriminatory or illegal in any way”, the Bench further noted.
Senior Advocate Anupam Srivastava appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Asmita Singh appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner in the matter had contended that no DHJS examination was conducted in 2025 despite vacancies arising during that recruitment year. He argued that under the earlier Rules, he would have remained eligible had the examination been held in 2025, but amendments notified on February 19, 2026 altered the method of calculating the upper age limit, thereby excluding him without any transitional protection. He also sought disclosure and separate filling of vacancies allegedly pertaining to the 2025 recruitment year.
Rejecting the contention, the Court observed that the notification issued on December 27, 2024 had already contemplated all existing and anticipated vacancies up to December 1, 2025.
While referring to Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Ors. decided on 09.10.2025, the Bench observed, “The plea of the petitioner that the vacancies from 01.12.2025 should have been filled up thereafter by way of an examination also cannot be accepted for the reason that pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rejanish K.V. (supra) on 09.10.2025, the Rules needed to be amended as per the directions contained therein. Till such time an amendment was brought about, no notification for the examination could have been issued. In fact, we find that the Rules were amended on 19.02.2026, which resulted in the notification dated 01.07.2026 contemplating vacancies till June 2027…”.
“In any case, there has been no challenge mounted to the notifications for the DHJS Exam-2026. Insofar as the plea of the petitioner for a one-time relaxation for appearing in the said examination, we find no compelling circumstances to grant the same. The petitioner had become over-age as on date of the notification, and it cannot be said that the actions of the respondents had in any way affected the rights of the petitioner”, it noted further.
Accordingly, holding that the respondents' actions had not adversely affected any right of the petitioner, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Ajay Kumar Sharma v. High Court Of Delhi Through Registrar General & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5530-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Anupam Srivastava, Senior Adv., Raj Kumar Ruhil, Pratap Singh, Manish K. Vaid, Hammad Ali and Sukhmandeep Singh, Advocates.
Respondents: Asmita Singh, Avnish Ahlawat SC, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam and Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates.