Allahabad High Court
Km. Lalti Devi vs State Of U.P. & Others on 8 December, 2011
Bench: Dinesh Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 36
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1762 of 2008
Petitioner :- Km. Lalti Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Vijay Mahendra,P.B. Umrao
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,V.K. Singh
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta,J.
1.This Special Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 58832 of 2008 (Km. Lalti Devi Vs. State of U.P. And others). The appellant/petitioner filed writ petition for the following reliefs:
To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the clause 2 Kha of the impugned advertisement dated 7.10.2008 issued by the respondent no. 2 contained in annexure no. 1 to the writ petition;
To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to modify the clause 2 Kha as minimum age 18 and maximum age 30 years for unmarried candidates and to accept the form of the petitioner.
2.An advertisement was published on 08.10.2008 for appointment of Health Worker Woman prescribing the conditions therein and one of the condition of age as mentioned was that for married, divorcee or widow, the minimum age is eighteen years and the maximum age is thirty five years and in the case of unmarried, the minimum age is mentioned as 30 years and no maximum age is prescribed. The petitioner belongs to OBC and possessed requisite qualification and is aged about 22 years. She applied for the said post but her candidature was not accepted. She filed the instant writ petition, which was dismissed by His Lordship by order dated 18.11.2008
3.Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this Special Appeal.
4.We have heard counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State.
5.The counsel for the appellant submits that vide their order dated 15.12.2008 passed in Special Appeal, the respondents were directed to consider the application of the appellant for appointment on the post of Health Worker. The counsel for the appellant further submitted that Chief Medical Officer, Kaushambi again rejected her application form on the same ground that the appellant/petitioner does not fulfil the minimum age as prescribed. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgement reported in (1981) 4 Supreme Court Cases 335 Air India Nargesh Meerza and others along with the other writ petitions.
6.The counsel submitted that advertisement provided minimum 18 years age for married and divorcee candidates and 30 years for unmarried candidate is arbitrary and is against the law.
7.The Court hearing the Special Appeal vide their order dated 15.12.2008, expressed their view that fixing minimum age thirty years in case of unmarried lady is without any rational approach. That fixing different minimum age for married/divorcee on one hand and unmarried on another hand is totally against the settled principles of law and it is violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
8.Counsel for the State submitted that the advertisement was issued in pursuance of the guidelines issued by the Mission Director, National Rural Health Project. With the other guidelines, it has been clearly mentioned that minimum age for the applicants, who are unmarried should be thirty years and the advertisement has been issued in pursuance of these guidelines and there is no illegality in the advertisement.
9.Counsel further submits that in pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court passed in Special Appeal, the matter was reconsidered by the Chief Medical Officer and since the minimum age being prescribed in the guidelines issued by the Mission Director is thirty years, again her candidature was rejected.
10.We are unable to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant.
11.The advertisement has been issued in pursuance of the guidelines issued by the Mission Director dated 05.09.2008. His Lordship in order passed in Writ Petition has rightly observed that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the fixation of minimum age is arbitrary. The case law relied upon by the appellant is distinguishable on the facts and legal proposition. Accordingly, we are unable to interfere in the order of His Lordship passed in Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Special Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.12.2011
yachna
