1. Challenge to Rule 6 of Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 fixing minimum age of 21 years for contractual appointment to post of ANM/Health Worker (Female), contrary to 18 years under Rules of 1965. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 690
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, ANUROOP SINGHI, JJ.
Shobha D/o Shri Babu Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Services – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1160 of 2024, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10905 of 2023, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10948 of 2023, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11200 of 2023, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11346 of 2023, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11597 of 2023, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11668 of 2023, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12782 of 2023, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13474 of 2023
Decided On : 08-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Yashpal Khileree Mr. Hapu Ram Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya Mr. Jayant Mahecha
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG with Mr. Ayush Gehlot Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Ms. Aditi Sharma Mr. Manish Patel
For the Petitioner: Mr. Yashpal Khileree Mr. Hapu Ram Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya Mr. Jayant Mahecha
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG with Mr. Ayush Gehlot Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Ms. Aditi Sharma Mr. Manish Patel
Prescribing a higher minimum age for contractual appointment than for regular appointment to the same post, where qualifications and duties are identical, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16, as it lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Service Law - Minimum age eligibility for recruitment - Reasonable classification - State prescribed a minimum age of 21 years for contractual appointments under civil posts hiring rules, while the subordinate service rules prescribed 18 years for regular appointments to the same post - Since qualifications and duties are identical, the distinction is manifestly arbitrary and lacks intelligible differentia - Such classification is discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights. (Paras 38, 40, 42)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 13(2) - Doctrine of Severability - If a portion of a rule is found to be unconstitutional and can be severed without changing the object of the legislation, only that part is void - Rule struck down only to the extent of the conflicting age requirement to maintain consistency with the regular service rules. (Paras 50, 51)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged a rule prescribing a minimum age of 21 years for contractual appointments to a specific health worker post. The regular appointment rules for the same post, requiring the same educational qualifications and involving similar duties and responsibilities, prescribed a minimum age of 18 years. This distinction rendered candidates eligible for regular recruitment ineligible for contractual recruitment for the same positions within the same department.
Findings of Court:
The court found that prescribing a higher minimum age for contractual appointment compared to regular appointment for the same post, with identical qualifications and duties, is manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory. The state failed to provide any intelligible differentia or rational nexus to justify the higher age requirement for contractual roles, especially when the state already accepts 18 years as sufficient maturity for regular appointments.
Issues: Whether the government can prescribe different age eligibility criteria for the same post based solely on the mode of appointment (contractual vs. regular), and whether such a distinction constitutes an intelligible differentia or is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The twin test of reasonable classification requires an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the object sought. When the nature of work, qualifications, and responsibilities are identical, a difference in minimum age based solely on the mode of appointment is artificial and evasive, failing both tests and resulting in hostile discrimination.
Result: Writ petition(s) allowed; the rule prescribing 21 years as minimum age for the specific post is struck down to the extent of its inconsistency with the regular appointment rules (18 years).
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners: age differentia arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g). Respondents: age limit policy domain, rules operate separately, presumption of constitutionality. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
3. No intelligible differentia; same post, qualifications, duties; higher age for contractual appointment manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 )
4. Prescribing different minimum age for same post based solely on mode of appointment lacks rational nexus and intelligible differentia, violating Article 14; such rule is severable and struck down. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 49 , 51 )
5. Writs allowed; Rule 6 struck down to extent it prescribes 21 years for contractual post of ANM/Health Worker (Female); age to be assessed per Rule 10 of Rules 1965. (Para 53 , 54 )
6. Can the State prescribe different minimum age eligibility for regular and contractual appointments to the same post with identical qualifications and duties?
No. Without intelligible differentia or rational nexus to the object, such classification is manifestly arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 49 )
7. Does the mode of appointment (contractual versus regular) itself constitute a sufficient basis for different age criteria?
No. The mere fact of contractual hiring does not create a valid classification; age criteria must be consistent for the same post when qualifications, duties, and nature of work are identical. (Para 39 , 49 )
8. Can an otherwise valid rule be partially struck down for violating Article 14?
Yes. Under the doctrine of severability, the offending part (minimum age of 21 years) is severed, and the rule is read consistently with Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 )
9. Does the presumption of constitutionality protect a rule that creates arbitrary age-based classification?
No. The presumption is rebutted when the rule is shown to be manifestly arbitrary and without reasonable classification; courts must strike down such provisions. (Para 47 )
JUDGMENT :
Anuroop Singhi, J.
| S.No. | Contents | Para Nos. |
| A. | The lis | 1 |
| B. | Facts | 2-8 |
| C. | Challenge made | 9-10 |
| D. | Submissions on behalf of the petitioner(s) | 11-21 |
| E. | Submissions on behalf of the respondent(s) | 22-32 |
| F. | Issues for consideration | 33 |
| G. | Relevant Articles/Rules | 34 |
| H. | Discussion and Analysis | 35-52 |
| I. | Conclusion | 53-54 |
A. The lis
1. The present writ petitions have been filed laying challenge to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules , 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2022”) which prescribes a minimum age of 21 years for hiring persons on contract basis in the State Government and has been invoked for making contractual appointment on the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife/Health Worker (Female) (hereinafter referred to as “A.N.M./Health Worker (Female)”), more particularly, considering the fact that Rajasthan Medical Health and Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1965”) stipulates a minimum age of 18 years for making regular appointment on the same very post. Thus, it is this distinction made by the State Government (hereinafter referred to as “respondent – State”) in prescribing the minimum age for making appointment on the same post, which has resulted into filing of the present writ petitions.
B. Facts
2. The rival versions portraying the relevant facts, having regard to the identicalness in the challenges, are being recited from the pleadings of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1160/2024 titled as Shobha Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
3. The prayers made in the said writ petition reads as under:
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the record of the case may kindly be called for and this pe- tition for writ may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order and directions: -
a) The rule 6 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules , 2022 (Annex.7) with respect to fixing the min- imum age 21 year in place of 18 year may kindly be declared ultra vires to the Constitution of India;
b) the fixing the minimum age of 21 year in place of 18 year for appointment on the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife / Health Worker (Female) under the notification dated 11.01.2022 le. Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules , 2022 Annex.7 be declared illegal and unconstitu- tional and accordingly respondent State may kindly be dir- ected to substitute the age of 18 year in place of 21 year in the notification dated 11.01.2022 Annex.7 as well as the advertisement dated 06.07.2023 (Annex.5)/corrigendum advertisement dated 12.01.2024 (Annex.6) forthwith;
c) The petitioner be declared qualified and eligible to parti- cipate in the selection process for the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife / Health Worker (Female) pursuant to ad- vertisement dated advertisement 06.07.2023 (Annex.5) and corrigendum dated 12.01.2024 (Annex.6);
d) the respondents may kindly be directed to accept the ap- plication form of the petitioner on hard copy/ off-line against the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife /Health Worker (Female) notify vide advertisement (Annex.5) dated and dated 06.07.2023 corrigendum 12.01.2024 advertisement (Annex.6) and consider her candidature for appointment on the post of ANM as per merit with all consequential benefits;
e) Without prejudice to above prayers, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue new advertisement for newly created/ sanctioned posts of Health Worker (Fe- male)/ ANM vide corrigendum advertisement. dated 12.01.2024 (Annex.6) and invite afresh application form from the eligible candidates;
f) any other writ, order, directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; AND
g) cost of this writ petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
4. The respondent – Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare, State of Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as “respondent – Department”) issued an Advertisement dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure-4) for inviting applications
