Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992 – r.3 – Uttar Pradesh Child Development and Nutrition (Subordinate) Service Rules 1992 – rr. 5(4), 10, 15A, 15B – Mukhya Sevika – Appointment of – Claim for age relaxation – Selections were to be made to the post of Mukhya Sevika from the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri – Eligibility for the same was High School qualified Anganwadi Karyakatris who had completed
10 years of service and had not crossed 50 years of age – Respondent had crossed the upper age limit of 50 years – Respondent filed writ petition and sought age relaxation – Single Judge of the High Court directed the competent authority to consider the claim of the respondent for grant of an age relaxation – Appeal filed before the Division Bench was dismissed – On appeal, held: The State had uniformly applied the prescribed age limit of 50 years to all applicants – On the direction of the Single Judge of the High Court, the State had applied its mind and considered the representation for the grant of age relaxation twice – In its discretionary power, the appellant decided that the respondent was not eligible for the grant of age relaxation – The respondent cannot claim age relaxation under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992 as a matter of right – Eligibility criteria should be uniform and there cannot be scope of arbitrary selections – A candidate cannot have a vested right to claim an exemption from a uniformly applicable criterion – A selective grant of an age relaxation will cause serious prejudice in the process of selection and render the process arbitrary – Therefore, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is hereby set aside – In consequence, the writ petition instituted by the respondent is dismissed.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.