Smt. Urmila Tripathi and another vs State of U.P. and others

R.H. Zaidi, J.—By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing U. P. Bal Vilkas Evam Pushtahar (Adhinasth) Sewa [Second Amendment), Rules 1998 (for short the Rules), in so far as they fix upper age limit as forty five years for appointment on the post of ''Mukhya Sewika''. Prayer for direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post of ''Mukhya Sewika.'' has also been made.

In brief, the relevant facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition, are that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as anganbaris on 18.6.82 and 22.5.85 respectively under the Rules. They have since been working on the said post on payment of a fixed honourarium per month. They have completed more than ten years of service. It is stated that on 2.8.97 an advertisement was made inviting applications for appointment on the post of ''Mukhya Sewikas''. Petitioners applied for their appointments and thereafter also appeared in the written test, but subsequently the said examination was cancelled, therefore, petitioners could not be appointed on the said posts.

On 19.6.98 Rules were amended and upper age limit as forty five years, for anganbari Jearya katris, who have completed ten years of service was fixed. As on the relevant date, the petitioners although completed ten years'' service, but became over age, therefore, in view of the said Rules they became ineligible for appointment on the said posts.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that fixation of upper age limit by the amended Rules as forty five years was wholly arbitrary and illegal. The same was, therefore, liable to be declared ultra vires and to be quashed.

On the other hand learned standing counsel supported the validity of the said Rules and urged that by means of Second Amendment in the Rules only the procedure prescribed for selection was changed. The upper age limit as it existed since framing of Rules continued to be the same.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Rules known as U. P. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar (Adhinasth) Sewa Niyamawali, 1992 were framed in the year 1992. The Second Amendment in the Rules came into force with effect from 19.6.98. Rule 5 of the said Rules was amended by aforesaid Amendment besides other Rules. Only Rule 5 is relevant for the purposes of the present case, which is quoted below :

^^fu;e 5 dk la''kks/ku % 2- mRrj izns''k cky fodkl ,oa iq"Vkgkj �v/khuLFk� lsok fu;ekoyh] 1992 esa ftls vkxs mDr fu;ekoyh dgk x;k gS fu;e 5 esa uhps LrEHk&1 esa fn;s x, orZeku [k.M �4� ds LFkku ij LrEHk&2 esa fn;k x;k [k.M j[k fn;k tk,xk] vFkkZr

LrEHk&1 LrEHk&2

orZeku [k.M �4� eq[; lsfodk& ,rn}kjk izfrLFkkfir [k.M �4� eq[; lsfodk&

�1�75 izfr''kr efgyk vH;fFkZ;ka esa izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk vkSj lk{kkRdkj ds vk/kkj ij p;u lfefr ds ek/;e ls lh/kh HkrhZ }kjkA �ipkl izfr''kr efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk esa vkSj lk{kkRdkj ds vk/kkj ij p;u lfefr ds ek/;e ls lh/kh HkrhZ }kjkA

�2� 25 izfr''kr ,sls gkbZ Ldwy ;k led{k ijh{kk mRRkh.kZ vkaxuckMh dk;Zdf=;ksa esa ls] ftUgksaus bl :i esa nl o"kZ dh fujarj lsok iwjh dj yh gks vkSj HkrhZ ds o"kZ ds izFke dks 45 o"kZ ls vf/kd dh vk;qw izkIr u dh gks] lk{kkRdkj ds vk/kkj ij p;u lfefr ds ek/;e ls lh/kh HkrhZ }kjkA ipkl izfr''kr gkbZ Ldwy ;k led{k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ vkaxuckzMh dk;Zdf=;ksa esa ls ftUgksaus HkrhZ ds o"kZ ds izFke fnol dks bl :i esa nl o"kZ dh fujUrj lsok fnol iwjh dj yh gks vkSj iSarkyhl o"kZ ls vf/kd dh vk;q izkzIr u dj yh gks] fu;e 15&[k ds vuqlkj p;u lfefr ds ek/;e ls lh/kh HkrhZ }kjkA

It is evident from the aforesaid Rule that upper age limit of forty five years in the year of recruitment as provided originally remained the same. The amendment was only in the procedure of appointment. The promotees originally used to be appointed on the basis of interview. The amended Rule changed the procedure and provided for appointment/promotion in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Second Amendment in the Rules provided for the upper age limit as 45 years and the same was Invalid, therefore, cannot be accepted. The petitioners since the very beginning of their services knew the fact that upper age limit for promotion to the post of ''Mukhya Scwika'' was forty five years have got no right to challenge the same. Further the fixation of upper age limit as forty five years for promotion on the post of Mukhya Sewika is quite reasonable, judging the same from the angle of services which are required to be performed by Mukhya Sewikas. Mukhya Sewikas are required to do supervisory work in the villages. They are supposed to supervise the work of anganbari centres by visiting from place to place. The ladies beyond forty five years of age are. therefore, not fit to be appointed as Mukhya Sewikas. In my opinion, the said Rule is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in any manner.

I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the Amended Rules. No case interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine.