As per case facts, petitioners challenged a vacancy notification and control order imposing a 45-year age restriction for Fair Price Shop dealership applicants, arguing it was unfair, discriminatory, and violated ... their fundamental rights to equality, to do business, and to livelihood. They highlighted the absence of an upper age limit for existing dealers, compassionate appointments, or M.R. Distributors, questioning the rationale behind this new entry-point restriction. The question arose whether the state’s policy decision to impose an age limit of 45 years for new FPS Dealership applicants was arbitrary, discriminatory, and ultra vires the Constitution of India, thereby infringing upon fundamental rights. Finally, the Court meticulously examined the arguments and precedents, concluding that the age restriction was indeed manifestly arbitrary. It found no rational nexus between the age cut-off and the policy's objectives, deeming it an impermissible whim. The Court ruled that such a restriction violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, the right to practice a profession, and the right to livelihood. Consequently, the impugned clauses were struck down, and the State was directed to permit the petitioners to participate in the selection process for the F.P. Shop Dealership, emphasizing that arbitrary exclusions adversely affect fundamental rights.