Supreme Court Upholds State’s Discretion on Age Relaxation for Mukhya Sevika Post: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shanti Devi (2022)

Date of the Judgment: August 8, 2022

Citation: Civil Appeal No 5207 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 1525 of 2021)

Judges: Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice A.S. Bopanna

Can a government employee claim a right to age relaxation for a promotion, or does the discretion lie solely with the appointing authority? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of Mukhya Sevikas in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue was whether an Anganwadi worker, who had crossed the upper age limit, could claim age relaxation based on the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992. The Supreme Court, in this case, upheld the State’s discretionary power to grant or deny age relaxation, emphasizing that no individual has a vested right to such relaxation. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The respondent, Shanti Devi, had been working as an Anganwadi worker since 1987. In 2018, the Directorate of Child Development Services & Nutritious Meals, UP, initiated the process to fill the vacant posts of Mukhya Sevika. As per the rules, 50% of the posts were to be filled by direct recruitment from eligible Anganwadi workers who had passed High School, completed 10 years of service, and were below 50 years of age as on 1 July 2017. Shanti Devi, having crossed the age of 50, sought age relaxation based on her continuous service. The State rejected her claim, stating that Anganwadi workers were not government employees and thus not eligible for age relaxation under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, on 11 April 2018, directed the State to consider Shanti Devi’s claim for age relaxation, based on the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992. The State appealed this decision, but a Division Bench of the same High Court dismissed the appeal on 13 December 2019, affirming the Single Judge’s order. The High Court noted that the State had not argued that the respondent was not a government employee. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the following rules:

• The Uttar Pradesh Child Development and Nutrition (Subordinate) Service Rules 1992: These rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, govern the recruitment and service conditions for various posts including Mukhya Sevika. Rule 5(4) specifies the sources of recruitment for 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 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.”
• The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992: These rules provide for age relaxation in public service recruitment. Rule 3 states:
  • “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.”

Arguments

Appellant (State of Uttar Pradesh):

• The State argued that the Age Relaxation Rules of 1992 apply only to candidates recruited through open competitive examinations.
• It contended that Anganwadi workers are not regular government employees but are part of a state government scheme, and therefore, the respondent was not eligible for age relaxation under the said rules.
• The State submitted that the discretion to grant age relaxation lies with the Governor and that the State had considered and rejected the respondent’s claim in exercise of its discretionary power.
• The State emphasized that the age limit of 50 years was uniformly applied to all applicants under Rule 5(4)(ii) of the UP Service Rules of 1992.

Respondent (Shanti Devi):

• The respondent argued that she was entitled to age relaxation due to her long and continuous service as an Anganwadi worker since 1987.
• She contended that the Age Relaxation Rules of 1992 have an overriding effect on all other rules regarding age relaxation.
• The respondent relied on the High Court’s judgment which had directed the State to consider her claim for age relaxation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. 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.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.
• The Uttar Pradesh Child Development and Nutrition (Subordinate) Service Rules 1992: These rules govern the recruitment process for Mukhya Sevika posts.
• The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992: These rules provide for age relaxation in public service recruitment.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court acknowledged that the Uttar Pradesh Child Development and Nutrition (Subordinate) Service Rules 1992* specify the recruitment process for Mukhya Sevika posts and the age limits for different categories of candidates.
• The Court interpreted The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992* as granting discretionary power to the Governor to provide age relaxation, but not creating a vested right for any candidate to claim such relaxation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that age relaxation is a discretionary power of the State and not a right that can be claimed by a candidate. The Court emphasized the need for uniform application of eligibility criteria and the potential for arbitrariness if selective exemptions are granted. The Court observed that the State had applied its mind and considered the respondent’s representation twice before rejecting it, which demonstrated that the State had exercised its discretion reasonably.

The court’s reasoning was as follows:

The Court considered the argument that the respondent had a right to age relaxation due to her long service but rejected it. The Court reasoned that the rules do not mandate age relaxation and that the State’s decision to deny relaxation was not arbitrary. The Court also considered the potential for arbitrariness and prejudice if age relaxation was granted selectively.

The Supreme Court held that the State had the discretion to grant or deny age relaxation and that the High Court was not justified in directing the State to consider the respondent’s claim. The Court emphasized that eligibility criteria should be uniformly applied and that no individual candidate has a vested right to claim an exemption from a uniformly applicable criterion.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “No individual candidate can claim a vested right to age relaxation which lies in the discretion of the appointing authority.”
• “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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench unanimously agreed that the State had the discretionary power to deny age relaxation.

Key Takeaways

• Age relaxation in public service recruitment is a discretionary power of the State, not a right of the candidate.
• Eligibility criteria should be uniformly applied to all candidates to ensure fairness and avoid arbitrariness.
• No individual candidate can claim a vested right to an exemption from a uniformly applicable criterion.
• The State’s decision to grant or deny age relaxation is subject to judicial review but only if it’s found to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State has the discretionary power to grant or deny age relaxation in public service recruitment, and no individual candidate has a vested right to claim such relaxation. This judgment reinforces the principle that eligibility criteria should be uniformly applied and that the State’s decision-making process should not be arbitrary. This case clarifies that the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992 do not mandate age relaxation but rather empower the Governor to grant it at their discretion.

Conclusion

In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shanti Devi, the Supreme Court held that the State has the discretionary power to grant or deny age relaxation in public service recruitment. The Court emphasized that no individual has a vested right to claim age relaxation and that eligibility criteria should be uniformly applied. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, which had directed the State to consider the respondent’s claim for age relaxation, thereby upholding the State’s decision to deny age relaxation to the respondent.