Shri Ramesh Chander Anand vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

Anil Kumar, J.—The petitioner has impugned scheme of fixing a retirement age of tourist guides by which in accordance with terms and

conditions issued in 1996 by condition No. 24, the retirement age of the tourist guide has been fixed as 65 years.

The rule was issued in this matter and thereafter as none had been appearing, the notices were issued to respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 2

have been served, however, no one is present on their behalf and Therefore the matter was taken up for final disposal.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Supreme Court in B.P. Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, had held

that retirement age cannot be fixed for a tourist guide and the identity card of such tourist guide is liable to be renewed. The Supreme Court had

held:

Thus testing the restriction of age, in the light of the law as indicated in the preceding paragraphs, clause 17 of the conditions of the identity

card/license issued by the respondent on the face of it, does not seem to be a reasonable restriction. It amounts to total prohibition to carry on the

profession of one ? own choice after attaining a particular age. It is true, even total prohibition upon carrying on one ? profession can be imposed

by way of regulatory measure, but for doing so condition of public interest must be fulfilled .It is not to be taken lightly; it must pass through a

stringent test. There are a number of callings and professions in which people are engaged even after attaining the age of 60 or 65 years and in

pursuing such self-employment and private profession they find means of their livelihood, without causing any harm to public interest. Such is the

case in hand too. The reason which has been indicated in the case of J.K. Agarwal2 which found favor in the Division Bench decision of V.K.

Chadha1 followed in the impugned judgment of the High Court does not contain such reasons which can be said to be reasonable enough to curtail

totally the right of carrying on profession of one ? choice on attaining a particular age. No element of public interest is involved. It is better to leave

it for those who are in the field, namely, those carrying on their profession and the consumers of their services. The purpose sought to be achieved

as indicated in J.K. Agarwal case2 that it may promote tourism is far- fetched and unrealistic. We have already considered this object sought to be

achieved by placing the restriction of age. The tourists are attracted by the place, its beauty, importance and historical background etc. and not

because of the more energetic guides. No harm is going to be caused to the general public if young and old people, both are professing their

profession of guides and are available for service to the tourists.

It is always better, nay, necessary too that the freedoms as guaranteed under the Constitution should be allowed to be enjoyed by the citizens

to the fullest possible extent without putting shackles of avoidable cobweb of rules and regulations putting check and restrictions in the enjoyment

of such freedoms. We find no reasonable ground to put a condition of age bar, where after a guide may not be allowed to continue his profession

as it does not fall in any of such categories which may justify placing such restrictions completely debarring him to act as guide. Curtailment of

freedom must have some strong reasons and real nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. It would not be imposed merely because it is

permissible for the State to do so.

The controversy in the present petition is also about quashing the rule fixing the age of the retirement of the tourist guide and a direction to renew

the identity cards or issue a fresh identity card to the petitioner.

The points in the present controversy are fully covered. For the reasons as detailed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court neither the respondent can

fix

a retirement age for petitioner nor can decline issuance of new identity card or renew the identity card of the petitioner

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are restrained from placing any maximum age for

retirement on which petitioner as tourist guides is to be retired and consequently the petitioner is not liable to be retired as a tourist guide at the age

of 65 years. The petitioner is also entitled for renewal of his identity card or issuance of a fresh identity card in the facts and circumstances.

Consequently, the rule is made absolute and respondents are directed to renew the identity card or issue a fresh identity card to the petitioner

and any stipulation regarding his retirement at any age is set aside.

The writ petition is disposed of in terms hereof and the parties are left to bear their own costs.