CA 5207/2022

1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 5207 of 2022

(Arising out of SLP (C) No 1525 of 2021)

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Appellants

Versus

Shanti Devi Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 Leave granted.

2 The appeal arises from a judgment dated 13 December 2019 of a Division

Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (at Lucknow).

CA 5207/2022

2

3 The issue which falls for determination is whether the Single Judge of the

High Court was justified in directing the State to consider the claim of the

respondent for the grant of an age relaxation in making appointments to the

post of Mukhya Sevika. The Single Judge in a judgment dated 11 April 2018

directed the State to consider the claim of the respondent for age relaxation

in terms of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of

the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992

1

. The judgment of the Single

Judge was affirmed in a Special Appeal

2

preferred by the State of Uttar

Pradesh.

4 Recruitment for the post of Mukhya Sevika is specified in The Uttar Pradesh

Child Development and Nutrition (Subordinate) Service Rules 1992

3

. The UP

Service Rules of 1992 have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of

the Constitution. The service which is constituted in terms of the Rules

comprises of group ‘C’ posts. Rule 5 deals with the sources of recruitment.

Among the posts specified in Rule 5, the following provision is made for the

post of Mukhya Sevika:

“5(4) Mukhya Sevika–

(i) Fifty percent through the Selection committee from

amongst female candidates on the basis of

competitive examination.

1 “Age Relaxation Rules of 1992”

2 “Special Appeal Defective No 570 of 2019”

3 “UP Service Rules of 1992”

CA 5207/2022

3

(ii) Fifty percent by direct recruitment through the

Selection Committee in Accordance with Rule 15-B

from amongst High School or Equivalent examination

pass Anganwadi Workers who have completed Ten

years continuous service as such and have not

attained the age of more than fifty years on the first

day of the year of recruitment.”

5 On 9 January 2018, a circular was issued by the Directorate of Child

Development Services & Nutritious Meals, UP to all District Programme

Officers stating that selections were to be made to the post of Mukhya Sevika

from the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri under the Directorate. Since the

appointments were to take place at the district level, instructions were issued

to collect details pertaining to eligible candidates from amongst High School

qualified Anganwadi Karyakatris who had completed 10 years of service and

had not crossed 50 years of age as on 1 July 2017.

6 Admittedly, the respondent had crossed the upper age limit of 50 years on

the relevant date. On 12 March 2018, the respondent submitted a

representation to the District Program Officer praying for age relaxation on

the ground of her continuous service rendered since 1987 as an Anganwadi

worker. She later filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking the grant of

an age relaxation in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of

the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992. Before the High Court, counsel

for the state submitted that the benefit of the Age Relaxation Rules of 1992

CA 5207/2022

4

cannot be granted to the respondent as she held a post of Anganwadi

Karyakatri, established under a scheme of the state government, and was

not a government employee.

7 The Age Relaxation Rules of 1992, which have been framed under Article 309

of the Constitution, contain the following stipulation:

“Relaxation of the age-limits for recruitment .–

3. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any

rule regulating the maximum age of recruitment to a

service or post in connection with the affairs of the

state, relaxation in the maximum age-limit may be

granted by the governor in favour of a candidate or a

class or candidate."

Provided that in the case in which recruitment is made

through the Commission, that body shall be consulted

before the relaxation is granted.”

8 The claim of the respondent was accepted in the judgment of the Single

Judge on 11 April 2018 based on the Age Relaxation Rules of 1992. The

Single Judge directed the competent authority to consider the claim of the

respondent for grant of an age relaxation:

“It is admitted case of the petitioner that she has

cross the age limit prescribed for consideration of

promotion on the post of Supervisor (Mukhya Sevika).

It has not been disputed that for relaxation in age she

approached the competent authority under Rule 1992.

These fact has also not been denied by the learned

Additional Chief Standing counsel. From a long span of

time no proceeding for grant of promotion on the post

CA 5207/2022

5

of supervisor has been finalized. Thus, the claim of

the petitioner for grant of age relaxation under the

aforesaid rules appears to be justified. This Court in

the aforesaid judgement referred hereinabove has

clearly held that Rule of 1992 is having overriding

effect upon all the rules in regard to the grant of age

relaxation. In view of the above, the petitioner has

made out a case for issuance of direction to the

competent authority to consider her claim for grant of

age relaxation in accordance with Rule of 1992”

9 The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a Special Appeal against the judgment dated

11 April 2018, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on

13 December 2019. The High Court in the impugned judgment noted that the

State in the Special Appeal had not taken a ground that the respondent was

not a government employee. Further, it relied on a judgment dated 16

December 2017, where a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had

directed the competent authorities to consider whether there should be an

age relaxation under Rule 3 of the Age Relaxations Rules of 1992 for

candidates appearing for different posts advertised by the UP Public Service

Commission.

10We have heard Mr Tanmaya Agarwal, counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent.

CA 5207/2022

6

11In compliance with the judgment dated 11 April 2018, the appellant in the

exercise of its discretion, considered and rejected the representation of the

respondent on 3 October 2018. The representation was reconsidered by the

Personnel Department on 13 November 2018. It noted that the case of the

respondent did not fall within the ambit of Rule 3 of the Age Relaxation Rules

of 1992 and denied the grant of an age relaxation to the respondent:

“7.In this regard, case was revisited in the light of

the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public Service

(Relaxation of Age Limit for Recruitment) Rules,

1992 and it was found that since the post of

Anganwadi worker is not in regular Government

service post (post of Anganwadi worker is

service based on honorary), for this reason,

aforesaid case is not covered by aforesaid rules.”

12 Rule 3 of the Age Relaxation Rules of 1992 which is extracted above begins

with a non obstante provision which operates notwithstanding anything to

the contrary contained in any rule regulating the maximum age of

recruitment to a service or post in connection with the affairs of the State.

The rule entrusts the Governor with a discretion to grant a relaxation in the

maximum age limit in favour of a candidate or a class of candidates. Counsel

for the appellant submits that Rule 3 of the Age Relaxation Rules of 1992 is

only applicable to candidates who are recruited from open category by

advertisement on the basis of competitive examination.

CA 5207/2022

7

13Rule 5(4) of the UP Service Rules of 1992 which has been extracted in the

earlier part of this judgment provides two sources of recruitment to the post

of Mukhya Sevika. The first source is through selection on the basis of a

competitive examination. Rule 15A provides for the procedure for direct

recruitment through a selection committee on the basis of a competitive

examination conducted by the Commission. Rule 10 states the maximum age

limit for candidates for direct recruitment shall be 40 years on the first day of

the year of recruitment in which vacancies for direct recruitment are

advertised by the commission. The second source is by direct recruitment

through a selection committee from amongst Anganwadi workers who have

passed High School and have completed 10 years of continuous service and

have not attained 50 years of age on the first day of the year of recruitment.

Rule 15B provides for the constitution of the selection committee for making

appointments through direct recruitment to the post of Mukhya Sevika under

Rule 5(4)(ii).

14The court was apprised by counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that

under Rule 5(4)(ii) read with Rule 15B of the UP Service Rules of 1992, the

Department received a list of 70,000 eligible Anganwadi workers against 975

vacant posts of Mukhya Sevika. The UP Service Rules of 1992 stipulate that

the upper age limit for the post of Mukhya Sevika under Rule 5(4)(ii) is 50

years as on the first day of recruitment year.

CA 5207/2022

8

15In the present case, the State uniformly applied the prescribed age limit of

50 years to all applicants considered under Rule 5(4)(ii) read with Rule 15B of

the UP Service Rules of 1992. On the direction of the Single Judge of the High

Court on 11 April 2018, the State applied its mind and considered the

representation for the grant of an age relaxation to the respondent twice —

on 3 October 2018 and on 13 November 2018. In exercise of its discretionary

power, the appellant decided that the respondent was not eligible to be

granted the benefit of an age relaxation. No individual candidate can claim a

vested right to age relaxation which lies in the discretion of the appointing

authority. The respondent cannot claim age relaxation under the Uttar

Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules

1992 as a matter of right. Eligibility criteria should be uniform and there

cannot be scope of arbitrary selections. A candidate cannot have a vested

right to claim an exemption from a uniformly applicable criterion. A selective

grant of an age relaxation will cause serious prejudice in the process of

selection and render the process arbitrary.

16For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned

judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

(at Lucknow) dated 13 December 2019 in Special Appeal Defective No 579 of

2019. In consequence, the writ petition which was instituted by the

respondent shall stand dismissed.

CA 5207/2022

9

17Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

….....…...….......………………........J.

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

..…....…........……………….…........J.

[A S Bopanna]

New Delhi;

August 08, 2022

CKB

CA 5207/2022

10

ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.3 SECTION III-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1525/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-12-2019

in SPLAD No.570/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

SHANTI DEVI Respondent(s)

(With IA No.10522/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT and IA No.10523/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 08-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

For Appellant(s) Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR

Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1 Leave granted.

CA 5207/2022

11

2 The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)

A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

(Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)