The age limit of 45 years for promotion under the Chhattisgarh Service Recruitment Rules is lawful and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Order :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition questioning the constitutional validity of clause 2(iii) of Schedule-IV enacted under Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Legal Metrology Class III (Non- Ministerial) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2013’) branding the same as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. She has further challenged the memo dated 29-9-2022 (Annexure P-7) by which she has been declared ineligible to participate in the limited competitive examination for appointment to the post of Inspector, Legal Metrology.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III on 29-1-2008. Thereafter, on 18-3-2013, the Rules of 2013 were notified in which there is a provision for limited departmental examination for the post of Inspector, Legal Metrology. The petitioner appeared in the said examination for the post of Inspector, Legal Metrology in the years 2014 and 2015, but she could not succeed and again, on 20- 10-2021, respondent No.3 invited applications for participation in the limited departmental examination for the said post to which the petitioner made application on 25-10-2021 (Annexure P-3) and list of eligible and ineligible candidates was declared on 20-4-2022 (Annexure P-5) to which the petitioner also made objection, however, she was declared ineligible on 29-9-2022 (Annexure P-7) holding that she being above the age of 45 years is not entitled to participate as per clause 2(iii) of Schedule-IV enacted under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2013, which has been challenged by way of the instant writ petition.

4. The State/respondents have filed their return stating inter alia that it is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe age limit for a particular post in exercise of power conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it is neither ultra vires nor arbitrary or unreasonable, it is in accordance with law and it is within the right of the employer/State Government to prescribe age limit for a post which can neither be challenged nor termed as unreasonable, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the said rule is in violation of the petitioner’s right under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Though the petitioner has twice appeared in the said examination, but since it is a promotional post, age limit could not be prescribed to be 45 years by which she had lost her right to be promoted on the post of Inspector, Legal Metrology. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Indravadan H. Shah v. State of Gujarat and another 1986 (Supp) SCC 254 to buttress his submission.

6. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents, would submit that the Rules of 2013 provide additional opportunity to the ministerial staff of the Department to appear in the limited competitive examination for appointment to the executive, Class-III post of Inspector, Legal Metrology and the Rules of 2013 are not rules of promotion but rules of direct recruitment to the post of Inspector, Legal Metrology as per Rules 8 and 13. Rule 8 deals with open category candidates and Rule 13 is with respect to ministerial staff of the Office of the Controller, Legal Metrology. He would further submit that there is always presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a legislation and challenge to the