Kusum Saraf and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

By this petition, the petitioners seek to quash the outer age limit of 45 years in the advertisement for the petitioners Aanganbadi workers and further a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners for appearing in the examination to be held for appointment on the post of Surveyor in Women & Child Welfare Department, pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.02.2009 (Annexure P/1).

The brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners are female candidates working as Aanganbadi workers in different places in the State. The next promotional post is Surveyor. The State Government published an advertisement for appointment of Surveyors on the basis of limited direct recruitment from Aaganbadi workers. The age limit prescribed therein was 18 years as on 01.01.2010, and the maximum age limit was 45 years. In case of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and OBC (except creamy layer) the age relaxation was provided in accordance with the rules. The petitioners ages were more than 45 years, thus, they were not permitted to participate in the selection process for promoting Aanganbadi workers to the post of Surveyor on the basis of limited competitive examination for Aanganbadi workers only. In the year 1996 by circular dated 14.10.1996, the age limit prescribed for Aanganbadi workers for appointment on the post of Surveyor, the outer age limit was 50 years. Aanganbadi workers, who are junior to the petitioners, are permitted to participate in the examination on the ground that their ages were within the outer age limit. The petitioners have been working for the last more than 20 years and due to the age limit, they are being deprived of opportunity to participate in the limited competitive examination for promotion to the post of Surveyor.

Mr. Gautam Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in a welfare State, the employer is under an obligation to create promotional avenues to its employees, therefore, the age relaxation may be granted to the petitioners, otherwise this will be discriminatory and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel would further submit that under Rule 4 of the CG Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 (for short, "the Rules 1997"), relaxation of ten years is provided for women candidates in direct recruitment in all posts in the services under the State. The same benefit may be extended to the petitioners also.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

Rule 4 of the Rules 1997 provides for age relaxation often years for women candidates in case of directed recruitment. In normal circumstances, the prescribed age limit is 20-30 years. In that case, relaxation of 10 years is provided. In the presents case, the provision of Rule 4 of the Rules 1997 is not applicable as this is firstly not direct recruitment and secondly outer age limit has been fixed as 45 years as all the participants under this category are women. It appears that the State has already taken care of relaxation while fixing the outer age limit i.e., 45 years. This cannot be held as discriminatory as other candidates, who were younger in age within 45 years, are bound to be considered as per the policy and age limit prescribed in the advertisement. There is a reasonable nexus and as such there is no discrimination or arbitrariness. It is not a case that one or two women candidates have been granted relaxation and the petitioners have been deprived the same. With regard to promotion, opportunity is made available, but some of the candidates who are over age, are not promoted. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there may have promotional avenues, deserves to be rejected as there is already promotional avenue.

Looking from all angles, I am of the considered opinion that there is no discrimination, unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the advertisement. This petition is without substance and is accordingly dismissed summarily. Consequently, I.A. No. 1 also stands dismissed.