Age Restriction for Promotion Violates Articles 14 and 16 Absent a Rational Nexus to Job Performance

The petitioners, working as Anganwadi Sevikas for over 22 years under Zilla Parishad, Akola, challenged Rule 7(1)(c) of the Service Entry Rules, 2021.

Previously, per a 2001 Government Resolution and Corrigendum, the age limit for promotion from Anganwadi Sevika to Supervisor was 55 years.

However, no promotional appointments were made for nearly 20 years.

On 04.06.2021, the State issued new Rules reducing the maximum eligibility age for promotion to 45 years.

The petitioners, having crossed 45 years while awaiting promotion since 2004, challenged the rule as arbitrary and discriminatory.

1. Whether Rule 7(1)(c) of the Service Entry Rules, 2021, reducing the promotional age limit from 55 to 45 years, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether the retrospective application of the reduced age limit violates the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

The court applied the fundamental rights of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which strike at arbitrariness in State action.

It relied on the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, as clarified in State of West Bengal v. Confederation of State Government Employees, which protects benefits arising from established practice or promises.

It further applied the "Twin Tests" of reasonable classification from D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, requiring an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the object.

Finally, it cited Indravadan H. Shah v. State of Gujarat, which established that arbitrary age restrictions for promotion lack logical justification.

The court found that the State’s justification—that Sevikas over 45 would struggle with the physical demands of supervision—lacked a rational nexus to the objective.

It noted the paradox that the State considers Sevikas fit to work until 65, yet deems them unfit for supervisory roles (retirement age 58) past the age of 45.

The court observed that the State failed to fill posts for 20 years, thereby denying petitioners’ legitimate expectations created by the 2001 Resolution.

By applying the 45-year limit retrospectively, the State effectively allowed juniors to supersede seniors, violating the principle of seniority and creating unreasonable discrimination between similarly qualified individuals.

The court allowed the Writ Petition, declaring Rule 7(1)(c) of the Service Entry Rules, 2021, unconstitutional and setting it aside, while quashing the subordinate communications dated 22.09.2021 and 19.12.2022. Rule was made absolute.