loader image

Candidates Who Failed 2024 Delhi Judicial Service Exam Cannot Claim Age Relaxation on the Ground That the 2025 Exam Was Not Held: SC

Candidates Who Failed 2024 Delhi Judicial Service Exam Cannot Claim Age Relaxation on the Ground That the 2025 Exam Was Not Held: SC

Ajay Kumar Sharma v. High Court of Delhi (Administrative Side) and Another, SLP (Civil) No. 23491 of 2026 & Indresh Kumar Gupta and Another v. High Court of Delhi and Another, SLP (Civil) No. 23402 of 2026 [Order dated July 15, 2026]

Delhi Judicial Service Age Relaxation

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain petitions seeking age relaxation for candidates aspiring to appear in the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2026, holding that candidates who had already participated in the previous recruitment process and were unsuccessful could not claim a vested right to another opportunity merely because no examination was held in 2025.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard petitions challenging ineligibility on account of crossing the upper age limit after the Delhi High Court did not conduct the Delhi Judicial Service Examination in 2025.

The petitioners contended that they had been prejudiced because no examination was held in 2025 for administrative reasons. One petitioner submitted that he had been a waitlisted candidate in the previous recruitment and had now become overage by a short period. Relying on an earlier Supreme Court judgment granting age relaxation where examinations were not conducted in 2020 and 2021, it was argued that a similar benefit ought to be extended.

The Bench, however, distinguished the earlier decision, observing that in those cases the petitioners had not participated in the previous examination, whereas the present petitioners had appeared in the December 2024 examination but failed to qualify. Rejecting the contention, the Chief Justice observed:

“We have no dispute on the point that the exam was not held. We have a contention that a person who appeared in December 2024, failed, cannot take a grouse that why exam is not held in 2025.”

When one petitioner argued that he might have succeeded had the examination been held in 2025, the Court termed the submission speculative. Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked:

“If you were meritorious, you would have succeeded… That speculation is always there…The age which is given is a band of 10 years… that does not create a right. We will have to see whether the situation is such that it creates extreme prejudice. Then only we can change. Otherwise not.”

Holding that it was not persuaded to interfere with the eligibility criteria or grant relaxation, the Bench declined to grant relief to the petitioners.