JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

The issue raised in this case pertains to age discrimination. In our opinion, the Petitioner has impermissibly discriminated against Respondent No.1 on the basis of her age and has thereby unreasonably denied employment to her.

2. The Petitioners had taken out an advertisement in 1996 for the appointment of primary teachers and nursery teachers. We are concerned with those applicants for the posts of primary teachers who belong to the OBC category.

3. In terms of the advertisement the age limit for recruitment as on 31st July, 1996 was 18 to 30 years generally with exceptions for lady candidates, SC/ST candidates, physically handicapped candidates, etc.

4. In response to the advertisement, the Petitioner appears to have received an extremely large number of applications from the general public. With a view to reduce the number, the Petitioner introduced short-listing criteria which included, inter alia, short-listing on the basis of the age of the applicant. It is this criterion on the basis of which Respondent No.1 became disentitled to employment and it is only this criterion that we are concerned with.

5. In so far as the applicability of the age criterion is concerned, the Petitioner decided to weed out those OBC candidates whose date of birth was later than 5th June, 1968. The effect of this was that even though the advertisement made eligible all candidates between the age of 18 and 30 years, by introducing the age criterion, the Petitioner eliminated all applicants except those whose age was between 28 and 30 years. Consequently, all the applicants between the age of 18 to 27 years were eliminated from selection.

6. One significant aspect in this case is that there was no test or interview or selection process conceived by the Petitioner and the procedure was that there would be a verification of the credentials of the candidates and those who were found to be eligible would be given the appointment. As a result, those candidates who fell within the age group of 28 to 30 years automatically became entitled to appointment (subject to their fulfilling the other conditions) while those below the age of 28 years were straight away eliminated, even if they were extremely competent.

7. According to Respondent No.1 who was an eliminated candidate, there was no rational basis for this classification and, therefore, she challenged the action taken by the Petitioner by filing a writ petition in this Court. Due to a notification having been issued under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the writ petition automatically stood transferred to the Tribunal, which allowed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi has preferred this writ petition.

8. The question that has arisen is whether the Petitioner can discriminate against equally placed candidates merely on the basis of age. Our answer to this is in the negative.

9. Article 14 of the Constitution provides for equal treatment before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons within the territory of India and Article 16 (1) of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Yet, discrimination between two equally placed persons is permissible if there is a reasonable classification and that reasonable classification is based on an intelligible differentia. Article 16 (2) of the Constitution provides that no citizen shall be discriminated against on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. There is no specific prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age. In other words, if there is age discrimination, the person discriminated against is entitled to rely only on Article 14 of the Constitution and demand equal treatment, while the State would have to show that the classification is reasonable and is based on intelli