STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus SHANTI DEVI

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 1051 · Decided: 08-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1051
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
v.
SHANTI DEVI
(Civil Appeal No. 5207 of 2022)
AUGUST 08, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits
for Recruitment) Rules 1992 – r.3 – Uttar Pradesh Child Development
and Nutrition (Subordinate) Service Rules 1992 – rr. 5(4), 10, 15A,
15B –  Mukhya Sevika – Appointment of – Claim for age relaxation
–  Selections were to be made to the post of Mukhya Sevika from
the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri – Eligibility for the same was
High School qualified Anganwadi Karyakatris who had completed
10 years of service and had not crossed 50 years of age – Respondent
had crossed the upper age limit of 50 years – Respondent filed
writ petition and sought age relaxation – Single Judge of the High
Court directed  the  competent  authority  to  consider  the  claim  of
the respondent for grant of an age relaxation – Appeal filed before
the Division Bench was dismissed – On appeal, held: The State had
uniformly applied the prescribed age limit of 50 years to all
applicants – On the direction of the Single Judge of the High Court,
the State had applied its mind and considered the representation
for the grant of age relaxation twice – In its discretionary power,
the appellant decided that the respondent was not eligible for the
grant of age relaxation – 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 – Therefore, the impugned
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is hereby set
aside – In consequence, the writ petition instituted by the respondent
is dismissed.
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1051
1051
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1052
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5207
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal Defective No. 570 of 2019.
Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Advs. for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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).
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 19921. The judgment of the Single Judge was affirmed in a Special
Appeal2 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 19923. 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.
(ii) Fifty percent by direct recruitment through the Selection
Committee in Accordance with Rule  15-B from amongst High
1 “Age Relaxation Rules of 1992”
2 “Special Appeal Defective No 570 of 2019”
3 “UP Service Rules of 1992”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1053
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 sele

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.