JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appellants have assailed the judgement and order dated May 20, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 2484 of 2018. By the impugned judgement and order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed at the behest of the appellants.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that, the appellants challenged the legality of Rule 23 (c) and 31 (5) of the West Bengal Electrical Licensing Rules, 2017 which purports to impose an age-based prohibition on the issuance and renewal of certificates for electrical supervisors under the Electricity Act, 2003 on the grounds that the same are ultra vires the Rule-making legislative competence of the State and being violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that, State traced its powers to promulgate the Rules of 2017 to Section 180 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 29 of the Central Electricity Authority Regulations, 2010. He has contended that, Section 180 of the Electricity Act, 2003 does not empower the State to make Regulations laying down an age bar for issuance and renewal of license. He has referred to Sections 2 (6), 53, 177 (2) (b) and 180 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in support of his contentions.

4. Referring to the Rules of 2017, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, the impugned Rules are not a policy decision under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. He has contended that, age bar prescribed is a regulatory measure, not a policy, and must comply with the required competence under the Electricity Act, 2003 and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

5. Referring to Articles 19 (1) (g) and 19 (6) of the Constitution of India, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, the term “qualification” mentioned in Article 19 (6) does not extend to an age-based prohibition in private profession. He has pointed out that, it can be considered as a qualification in the context of employment contracts but not when a person is in self-employment. According to him, “qualification” under Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India has referred to technical skills, competence and other necessary requirements but not age. According to him, State cannot impose an age restriction in nature of complete prohibition under the guise of qualification in safety domain under the Electricity Act, 2003 as it would have directly violated the right to practice the profession guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. He has contended that, the term “qualification” used in Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution must be interpreted narrowly.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that age inherently is not a measure of competence. He has contended that, age-based restriction does not address a person’s capability to perform the duties required of an electrical supervisor and therefore cannot be justified as a qualification within the meaning of Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India. He has contended that, imposing an age limit without any direct connection to the professional competence of the individual effectively converts “qualification” into a blanket prohibition which the Constitution does not permit. State has failed to produce any empirical data establishing that, after a particular age, grant of license or renewals thereof would be against public safety.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that, right to profession without unreasonable restriction is guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. He has contended that, none of the grounds stated in the affidavit of the State purporting to justify the imposition of the age bar are acceptable.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, the impugned Rules are not a pie