The discretionary power of the appointing authority in granting age relaxation and the need for uniform eligibility criteria to avoid arbitrary selections.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. - Leave granted.

2. The appeal arises from a judgment dated 13 December 2019 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (at Lucknow).

3. The issue which falls for determination is whether the Single Judge of the High Court was justified in directing the State to consider the claim of the respondent for the grant of an age relaxation in making appointments to the post of Mukhya Sevika. The Single Judge in a judgment dated 11 April 2018 directed the State to consider the claim of the respondent for age relaxation in terms of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992['Age Relaxation Rules of 1992']. The judgment of the Single Judge was affirmed in a Special Appeal['Special Appeal Defective No 570 of 2019'] preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

4. Recruitment for the post of Mukhya Sevika is specified in The Uttar Pradesh Child Development and Nutrition (Subordinate) Service Rules 1992['UP Service Rules of 1992']. The UP Service Rules of 1992 have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The service which is constituted in terms of the Rules comprises of group 'C' posts. Rule 5 deals with the sources of recruitment. Among the posts specified in Rule 5, the following provision is made for the post of Mukhya Sevika:

'5(4) Mukhya Sevika-

(i) Fifty percent through the Selection committee from amongst female candidates on the basis of competitive examination.

(ii) Fifty percent by direct recruitment through the Selection Committee in Accordance with Rule 15-B from amongst High School or Equivalent examination pass Anganwadi Workers who have completed Ten years continuous service as such and have not attained the age of more than fifty years on the first day of the year of recruitment.'

5. On 9 January 2018, a circular was issued by the Directorate of Child Development Services & Nutritious Meals, UP to all District Programme Officers stating that selections were to be made to the post of Mukhya Sevika from the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri under the Directorate. Since the appointments were to take place at the district level, instructions were issued to collect details pertaining to eligible candidates from amongst High School qualified Anganwadi Karyakatris who had completed 10 years of service and had not crossed 50 years of age as on 1 July 2017.

6. Admittedly, the respondent had crossed the upper age limit of 50 years on the relevant date. On 12 March 2018, the respondent submitted a representation to the District Program Officer praying for age relaxation on the ground of her continuous service rendered since 1987 as an Anganwadi worker. She later filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking the grant of an age relaxation in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992. Before the High Court, counsel for the state submitted that the benefit of the Age Relaxation Rules of 1992 cannot be granted to the respondent as she held a post of Anganwadi Karyakatri, established under a scheme of the state government, and was not a government employee.

7. The Age Relaxation Rules of 1992, which have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, contain the following stipulation:

'Relaxation of the age-limits for recruitment.-

3. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any rule regulating the maximum age of recruitment to a service or post in connection with the affairs of the state, relaxation in the maximum age-limit may be granted by the governor in favour of a candidate or a class or candidate."

Provided that in the case in which recruitment is made through the Commission, that body shall be consulted before the relaxation is granted.'

8. The claim of the respondent was accepted in the judgment of the Single Judge on 11 April 2018 based on the Age Relaxation Rules of 1992. TheSingle Judge directed the competent authority to consid