Raksha Chetal and others vs State of Punjab and another

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the corrigendum dated 17.09.2011, whereby, a bar in terms of stipulation of age limit of 52 years has been imposed for consideration of promotion to the post of Supervisor in the Department of Women & Child Welfare, Punjab. Facts in brief would require notice. The petitioners were recruited to the posts of Anganwari Workers between the years 1975-81. Promotion from the post of Anganwari Worker is to the post of Supervisor. In terms of issuance of public notice dated 23.12.2010, applications were invited for selection and appointment to 286 posts of Supervisor from amongst the Anganwari Workers working in various Anganwari Centres running under the respondent/department. The criteria for selection on the basis of merit as per marks to be assigned on the educational qualification and experience possessed was laid down under such public notice. That apart, an upper age limit of 52 years as on 01.11.2010 was also stipulated for purpose of consideration for selection to the post of Supervisor. However, by way of a subsequent notification dated 17.01.2011, the age limit was relaxed to 58 years for the post of Supervisor and accordingly, the corrigendum was issued on 25.01.2011, whereby, the stipulation as regards age limit was increased to 58 years. The petitioners contend that they are all eligible to be considered for purposes of promotion to the post of Supervisor and accordingly, they had applied and submitted their applications for such purpose before the Competent Authority. The petitioners are presently aggrieved of a issuance of yet another corrigendum dated 17.09.2011, whereby, the earlier notification dated 17.01.2011 had been withdrawn and the age limit of 52 years has yet again been imposed for purpose of selection of Anganwari Workers working in the department to be appointed to the post of Supervisor.

I have heard Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the stipulation of an upper age limit of 52 years for purpose of consideration of an Anganwari Worker by way of promotion to the post of Supervisor, is contrary to the statutory service rules governing the post. Counsel has further submitted that the impugned corrigendum dated 17.09.2011 (Annexure P-13) is arbitrary and untenable in law inasmuch as no age limit could have been prescribed in the matter of promotion to a higher post in the service.

Learned State counsel has sought to justify the imposition of the age bar of 52 years in terms of referring to the reply filed on behalf of the State and contends that the maximum age limit for fresh recruitment in the State of Punjab has been fixed as 37 years but on account of the fact that the selection to the post of Supervisors is being done after a gap of almost 15 years, accordingly, the maximum age limit for selecting Supervisors from Anganwari Workers has been fixed as 52 years.

There would be no ambiguity as regards the fact that in pursuance to the public notice dated 23.12.2010, 286 posts of Supervisors are being sought to be filled up by way of promotion. This would be apparent from the fact that applications have been invited for purpose of selection confined only to the Anganwari Workers working in the various Anganwari Centres being run by the respondent/department.

The appointment, mode of recruitment and conditions of service for the post of Supervisor are governed by Punjab Social Security and Development of Women and Children (Group-C) Non-Ministerial Service Rules 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as "2001 Rules"). Rule 6 governs the method of appointment and qualifications to various posts in the service and it is mandated that appointment to the service shall be made in the manner as specified in Appendix ''B''. Rule 6 sub clause 3 lays down that appointment to the service by promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. As per Appendix ''B'', in respect of the post of Supervisor, two modes of appointment have been prescribed i.e. 25% by direct appointment and 75% by way of promotion. As regards the qualifications and experience for appointment by way of promotion to the post of Supervisor is concerned, it has been stipulated that out of 75% promotional quota, 35% posts of Supervisors will be filled up by selection from amongst Anganwari Workers, who are matriculates and have experience of working on such post for a minimum period of 8 years; 35% of the promotional quota, is to be filled up by way of Anganwari Workers, who are graduates and have a working experience on such post for a period of 3 years and the balance 5% by promotion from amongst Bal Sevikas and Grah Sevikas with an experience of a minimum period of 8 years. Under the 2001 Rules, there is no stipulation as regards the age limit for purpose of consideration of an eligible Anganwari Worker for promotion to the post of Supervisor.

The impugned corrigendum dated 17.09.2011 (Annexure P-13) governing age bar of 52 years for purpose of consideration of an Anganwari Worker for promotion to the post of Supervisor, is clearly violative of the statutory provisions contained in 2001 Rules governing the service. The stipulation of such an age limit for purpose of promotion to the post of Supervisor, is totally alien to the Rules.

Rule 6 Sub Clause 3 of 2001 Rules mandate that the appointment to a post in service by way of promotion shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The public notice dated 23.12.2010 (Annexure P-5) for purpose of selection to 286 posts of Supervisors from amongst Anganwari Workers lays down a criteria for assigning of marks as per educational qualifications and experience. No exception to such criteria can be taken as the same is in furtherance of the statutory rules, wherein, it has been stipulated that promotion to a post in the service is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. As such, the promotion to the post of Supervisor under the rules has to be made on the basis of seniority subject to the candidate fulfilling the benchmark of merit in terms of the criteria as prescribed by the department.

The prescription of an age limit, which would debar a candidate from being considered for promotion will have to be held as illegal and arbitrary being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The direct consequence of the impugned corrigendum prescribing the age limit of 52 years would be that a junior would be able to steal a march over his senior and as such, candidate like the petitioners, who have spent a considerable length of time on the post of Anganwari Worker would be denied even consideration as regards promotion to the higher post of Supervisor. Such an action is impermissible in law.

At this stage, learned State counsel would contend that the notification dated 17.09.2011 has been issued in terms of invoking the power of relaxation under the Punjab Civil Services (General & Common conditions of Service) Rules 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the 1994 Rules'').

Even such submission is being noticed only to be rejected. Rule 8 of 2001 Rules provides that in respect to such matters, which are not specifically provided in the 2001 Rules, the conditions of service would be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (General & Common Conditions of Service) Rules 1994. Rule 5 of the 1994 Rules governs the issue of age and it has been stipulated that no person shall be recruited to a service by direct appointment, if he is less than 18 years or is more than 30 years of age in the case of non-technical post and 33 years in the case of technical posts. Rule 5 vests with the State Government the power of relaxation the upper age limit in the case of persons already in the employment of the Punjab Government. Clearly, the age stipulation and relaxation thereof under Rule 5 of the 1994 Rules is applicable only to the mode of direct recruitment and not to promotion. The impugned notification dated 17.09.2011 (Annexure P-13) has been issued on the wrongful premise that a age limit would apply in the case of promotion and consequently, a relaxation of the same is also permissible. Having already held that there is no age limit as regards consideration of Anganwari Workers to be appointed by way of promotion to the post of Supervisor under the 2001 Rules, the purported relaxation and stipulation of 52 years age limit under the impugned corrigendum dated 17.09.2011 is, wholly misconceived and is without any sanction in law. For the reasons recorded above, the corrigendum dated 17.09.2011 (Annexure P-13) is quashed. It is held that for the purposes of consideration of Anganwari Workers to the post of Supervisor in the respondent/department there should be no stipulation of age limit. It is further directed that the respondent/authorities shall complete the process of selection from amongst Anganwari Workers for appointment to the post of Supervisors by way of promotion strictly in terms of Punjab Social Security and Development of Women and Children (Group-C) non Ministerial Service Rules 2001. The civil writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.