# Kajal Kumari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 968
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-09
- **Case number:** Writ -A No. 7793 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kajal-kumari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51033
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Jurisdiction - Condonation
of delay - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of
Dependants
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 5 - As
per the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of
1974, apart from the law about the
relevant and material facts, on the basis of
which, the power to condone a delay
beyond five years ought be exercised,
12 All. Kajal Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
969
shows that the power to condone the
delay in making an application about
compassionate appointment beyond five
years vests in the State Government; not
the Appointing Authority.

Therefore, in this case, the Commandant, 41st
Battalion, PAC, Ghaziabad, the competent
authority, having found that there was a delay
beyond five years and the application was made
in the sixth year, ought not have determined the
application on merits herself. She should have
referred it to the State Government for a
decision in the matter of condonation of delay.
This reference should have been made with
notice to the petitioner about it and apprising
her also of the fact that she may file such
material as she thought best. The material, if
any, then filed by the petitioner in support of
her case for condonation of delay beyond five
years, ought have been forwarded to the State
Government. (Para 13, 16)

B. The guidance in the matter by the
Superintendent of Police (Establishment)
vide letter dated 15.04.2024, asking the
Commandant to decide the matter, as she
was the competent authority, would not
confer jurisdiction upon the Commandant,
where, it was not vested in her, in view of
proviso to Rule 5.

Likewise, even our command in Writ - A No.
12241 of 2020 could not have been regarded
as one conferring jurisdiction upon the
Commandant, contrary to the mandate of the
proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974, which
are rules framed by the Governor under the
proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution. (Para
13)

C. Even if the GO and circular say that
there can be no condonation of delay
beyond five years, neither can override
the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of
1974, as the Rules last mentioned are
statutory
in
character,
being
ones
framed under the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution. The learned Standing
Counsel submits most emphatically that
beyond
five
years,
no
application
for
compassionate
appointment
can
be
entertained, neither under the GO dated
18.09.2015 nor the Police Headquarters'
Circular
dated
24.11.2015
issued
in
pursuance of the GO. Rules, without
doubt, prevail over any GO issued in
the exercise of the executive power of
the
State,
and
a
fortiori,
any
administrative circular by the Police
Headquarters. (Para 15)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present
petition
challenges
order
dated
16.04.2024,
passed
by
Ms.
Shalini,
the
Commandant,
41st
Battalion,
Provincial
Armed
Constabulary, Ghaziabad, rejecting the
petitioner's
application
for
compassionate appointment.

## Text

968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
substituting it by a Court mandated
further medical evaluation.
9. Any such exercise in
acceding to requests of candidates
who are not found to be medically
fit for reassessment on the basis of
procedures
other
than
those
envisaged by the recruiting agency
under the relevant rules would
result in the recruitment process
being
derailed,
which
would
ordinarily be not permissible."

12. A similar view had also been
taken in another judgment of this Court in
Vivek Kumar S/o Mool Chandra vs.
State of UP & Others2, wherein it was
held that matters relating to medical
evaluation of candidates in a recruitment
process involve expert determination and
it may not be desirable to supplant the
procedure prescribed therefor as laid
down under the relevant recruitment rules
and taking any other view may have the
effect
of
derailing
the
recruitment
process.

13. In the present case, where
recruitment process has been carried out
as
per
the
prescribed
procedure
whereunder
the
medical
fitness
of
candidates has been tested by a duly
constituted Medical Board, the report of
the Medical Board is not to be normally
interfered with, and that too, solely on the
basis of a claim sought to be set up by the
appellant-petitioner on the basis of some
subsequent report procured by him from
another medical practitioner.

14. It is no where the case of the
petitioner that the decision taken by the
Medical Board was arbitrary or not in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
for the recruitment in question.
15. We are of the view that a claim
sought to be set up on the basis of a
subsequent medical report produced by the
candidate would not have the effect of
overriding or setting at naught the expert
opinion of the Medical Board set up as per
procedure in a recruitment process.

16. The impugned judgment
passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A
No.15441 of 2024 is based on appreciation
of the facts and the material on record, and
after recording cogent reasons. We do not
see any reason to take a different view.

17. The appeal lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 968
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ -A No. 7793 of 2024

Kajal Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Narendra Singh Chahar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Standing Counsel for the State

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Jurisdiction - Condonation
of delay - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of
Dependants
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 5 - As
per the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of
1974, apart from the law about the
relevant and material facts, on the basis of
which, the power to condone a delay
beyond five years ought be exercised,
12 All. Kajal Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
969
shows that the power to condone the
delay in making an application about
compassionate appointment beyond five
years vests in the State Government; not
the Appointing Authority.

Therefore, in this case, the Commandant, 41st
Battalion, PAC, Ghaziabad, the competent
authority, having found that there was a delay
beyond five years and the application was made
in the sixth year, ought not have determined the
application on merits herself. She should have
referred it to the State Government for a
decision in the matter of condonation of delay.
This reference should have been made with
notice to the petitioner about it and apprising
her also of the fact that she may file such
material as she thought best. The material, if
any, then filed by the petitioner in support of
her case for condonation of delay beyond five
years, ought have been forwarded to the State
Government. (Para 13, 16)

B. The guidance in the matter by the
Superintendent of Police (Establishment)
vide letter dated 15.04.2024, asking the
Commandant to decide the matter, as she
was the competent authority, would not
confer jurisdiction upon the Commandant,
where, it was not vested in her, in view of
proviso to Rule 5.

Likewise, even our command in Writ - A No.
12241 of 2020 could not have been regarded
as one conferring jurisdiction upon the
Commandant, contrary to the mandate of the
proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974, which
are rules framed by the Governor under the
proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution. (Para
13)

C. Even if the GO and circular say that
there can be no condonation of delay
beyond five years, neither can override
the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of
1974, as the Rules last mentioned are
statutory
in
character,
being
ones
framed under the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution. The learned Standing
Counsel submits most emphatically that
beyond
five
years,
no
application
for
compassionate
appointment
can
be
entertained, neither under the GO dated
18.09.2015 nor the Police Headquarters'
Circular
dated
24.11.2015
issued
in
pursuance of the GO. Rules, without
doubt, prevail over any GO issued in
the exercise of the executive power of
the
State,
and
a
fortiori,
any
administrative circular by the Police
Headquarters. (Para 15)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present
petition
challenges
order
dated
16.04.2024,
passed
by
Ms.
Shalini,
the
Commandant,
41st
Battalion,
Provincial
Armed
Constabulary, Ghaziabad, rejecting the
petitioner's
application
for
compassionate appointment.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

Ms. Shalini, the Commandant, 41st
Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary,
Ghaziabad, by her order impugned dated
16.04.2024, has rejected the petitioner's
application for compassionate appointment
without
compassion;
also,
without
jurisdiction.

2. The petitioner, Kajal Kumari, is
the daughter of the late Ashok Kumar, who
was serving as a Constable with the
Provincial
Armed
Constabulary1,
Ghaziabad.
He
died
in
harness
on
16.11.2013. He left behind him his widow,
Smt. Guddi Devi, a son called Vishvendra
Singh, besides the petitioner, Kajal Kumari,
the deceased's daughter. Ashok Kumar's
son, Vishvendra Singh, made an application
dated 06.07.2015, seeking compassionate
appointment under the Uttar Pradesh
Recruitment of Dependants of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 19742.
Vishvendra Singh was referred to a medical
examination
of
the
Chief
Medical
Superintendent, Ghaziabad, who, vide his
medical report dated 03.09.2015, intimated
the
respondents
that
Vishvendra
has
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complete loss of vision in the left eye. He
was, therefore, denied appointment vide
order dated 24.11.2015.

3. Vishvendra challenged the order
dated 24.11.2015 before this Court by
means of Writ - A No. 6339 of 2018, which
was, later on, withdrawn on 08.02.2021. It
appears
that
Smt.
Guddi
Devi,
the
deceased's widow, was informed that she
could
make
an
application
for
compassionate appointment for herself or
any other family member eligible for
employment under the Rules of 1974. The
respondents say that Smt. Guddi Devi did
not respond for a long time and then made
applications
dated
09.09.2019
and
11.09.2019 to the Deputy Inspector General
of Police (Establishment), U.P. Police
Headquarters, seeking employment this
time for her daughter, the petitioner, Kajal
Kumari. A letter dated 03.11.2020 was
issued to Smt. Guddi Devi, asking her to
ensure submission of an application form in
the
prescribed
proforma
for
the
employment of her daughter under the
Rules of 1974.

4. As it appears, these applications
dated 09.09.2019 and 11.09.2019 did not
receive prompt attention, leading the
petitioner to institute Writ - A No. 12241 of
2020, seeking a direction to the respondents
to decide her applications dated 09.09.2019
and
11.09.2019
for
compassionate
appointment.
In
the
meantime,
the
petitioner, when asked to apply on the
prescribed proforma, did that, pursuant
whereto, a letter dated 17.11.2021 was
addressed by the Commandant, 41st
Battalion, PAC, Ghaziabad to the District
Magistrate, Agra to verify the petitioner's
income certificate, caste certificate and
residence certificate. The Commandant also
addressed a letter to the Regional Secretary,
Board of High School and Intermediate
Education,
Regional
Office,
Ajmer,
Rajasthan, seeking verification of the
petitioner's
intermediate
education
certificate etc. issued by that Board.

5. While all of this was happening,
the petitioner's writ petition - Writ - A No.
12241 of 2020, came up before this Court
on 21.02.2024, where, the following order
was passed (material part) :

4. In this view of the matter
and also in the interest of justice,
the present writ petition is disposed
of finally directing the respondent
no.3 namely Commandant 41st
P.A.C. Vahini, Ghaziabad to take a
decision
in
the
matter
most
expeditiously and preferably within
a period of six weeks from the date
of presentation of certified copy of
this order.
5. It is made clear that this
Court has not passed order on the
merits of the case and the authority
concerned will pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law
without influence of any of the
observations made by this Court.

6. As it appears, the Commandant,
41st Battalion, PAC, Ghaziabad sought
guidance in the matter after this Court's
order dated 21.02.2024 from the Additional
Director General of Police (Establishment),
Headquarters,
U.P.,
Lucknow.
The
Superintendent of Police (Establishment),
Uttar Pradesh by some letter dated
15.04.2024 seems to have issued guidelines
to the Commandant to pass necessary
orders on the petitioner's claim for
compassionate appointment as the officer
competent to decide it. The Commandant,
by her order impugned dated April the
12 All. Kajal Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
971
16th, 2024, rejected the petitioner's claim
on ground that it was made beyond the
prescribed period of limitation of five years
under the Rules of 1974; it was found to
have been made beyond five years. It is
remarked to have been made in the sixth
year.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned
order, this writ petition has been instituted
under Article 226 of the Constitution.

8. On 02.07.2024, we issued a
notice of motion in the following terms :

The
Commandant
41st
PAC Vahini, Ghaziabad shall show
cause, on his own affidavit to be
filed within a week, how he has
rejected the petitioner's application
for compassionate appointment on
the ground of delay, that is to say,
the application being one made
beyond a period of five years, when
the power to consider such belated
matters condoning delay is vested
in the State Government. Prima
facie, the Commandant should have
referred the matter to the State
Government,
directing
the
petitioner to explain the delay
before the Government referring
the claim (sic). The personal
affidavit of the Commandant shall
be filed on or before 10.07.2024.
The affidavit shall be in the nature
of a counter affidavit.
Adjourned to 10.07.2024.
To be taken up as fresh.

The
Registrar
(Compliance)
is
directed
to
communicate this order to the
Commandant 41st PAC Vahini,
Ghaziabad through the learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad within 24 hours next.

9. In compliance with the order
dated 02.07.2024, a counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3,
the Commandant 41st Battalion, PAC,
Ghaziabad which is her personal affidavit.

10. The parties having exchanged
affidavits, the writ petition was admitted to
hearing on 23.07.2024, which proceeded
forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

11. Heard Mr. Narendra Singh
Chahar, learned Counsel for the petitioner
and
the
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State.

12. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974
reads :

3[5.(1) Recruitment of a
member of the family of the
deceased--In case a Government
servant dies in harness after the
commencement of these rules, and
the
spouse
of
the
deceased
Government servant is not already
employed
under
the
Central
Government or a State Government
or
a
Corporation
owned
or
controlled
by
the
Central
Government
or
a
State
Government, one member of his
family
who
is
not
already
employed
under
the
Central
Government or a State Government
or
a
Corporation
owned
or
controlled
by
the
Central
Government of State Government
shall, on making an application for
the purpose, be given a suitably
employment
in
Government
Service on a post except the post
972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which is within the purview of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Service
Commission, in relaxation of the
normal recruitment rules if such
person:-
4[(i) fulfils the' educational
qualifications prescribed for the
post:
Provided
that
in
case
appointment is to be made on a
post for which typewriting has been
prescribed
as
an
essential
qualification and the dependent of
the deceased Government servant
does not possess the required
proficiency in typewriting, he shall
be
appointed
subject
to
the
condition that he would acquire the
requisite speed of 25 words per
minute in typewriting well within
one year and if he fails to do so, his
general annual increment shall be
withheld and a further period of
one year shall be granted to him to
acquire the requisite speed in
typewriting and if in the extended
period also he again fails to acquire
the requisite speed in typewriting,
then an order will be issued to
provide him appointment on the
post of class IV. The appointment
so granted shall be deemed to be
a fresh appointment and shall not
be reversion. If he does not join
the post of class IV within
stipulated time his services will
be terminated.
Provided further that in
case appointment is to be made on
a post for which the knowledge of
computer operation and typewriting
has been prescribed as an essential
qualification and the dependent of
the deceased Government servant
does not possess the required
proficiency in computer operation
and
typewriting,
he
shall
be
appointed subject to- the condition
that he would acquire the 'CCC'
certificate in computer operation
awarded by the DOEACC Society
or a certificate equivalent thereto
from an Institution recognised by
the Government together with the
required speed of 25 words per
minute in typewriting well within
one year and, if he fails to do so,
his general annual increment shall
be withheld and a further period of
one year shall be granted to him to
acquire the required certificate in
computer
operation
and
the
required speed in typewriting and if
in the extended period also he again
fails
to
acquire
the
required
certificate in computer operation
and
the
required
speed
in
typewriting, then an order will be
issued
to
provide
him
appointment on the post of class
IV. The appointment so granted
shall be deemed to be a fresh
appointment and shall not be
reversion. If he does not join the
post of class IV within stipulated
time
his
services
will
be
terminated.
(ii) is otherwise qualified
for Government service, and
(iii) makes the application
for employment within five years
from the date of the death of the
Government servant:
Provided that where the
State Government is satisfied that
the time limit fixed for making the
application for employment causes
undue hardship in any particular
case, it may dispense with or relax
"the requirement as it may consider
12 All. Kajal Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
973
necessary for dealing with the case
in a just and equitable manner:
Provided further that for,
the
purpose
of
the
aforesaid
proviso, the person concerned shall
explain the reasons and give proper
justification in writing regarding
the delay caused in making the
application for employment after
the expiry of the time limit fixed
for making the application for
employment
along
with
the
necessary
documents/proof
in
support of such delay and the
Government shall, after taking into
consideration all the facts leading
to such delay, take the appropriate
decision.
(2) As far as possible, such
an employment should be given in
the same department in which the
deceased Government servant was
employed prior to his death.

(3)
Every
appointment
made under sub-rule (1) shall be
subject to the condition that the
person appointed under sub-rule (1)
shall maintain other members of
the family of deceased Government
servant, who were dependent on the
deceased
Government
servant
immediately before his death and
are unable to maintain themselves.

(4)
Where
the
person
appointed
under
sub-rule
(1)
neglects or refuses to maintain a
person to whom he is liable to
maintain under sub-rule (3), his
services may be terminated in
accordance with the Uttar Pradesh
Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal)
Rules,
1999,
as
amended from time to time.
13. A reading of the proviso to
Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974, apart from the
law about the relevant and material facts,
on the basis of which, the power to
condone a delay beyond five years ought be
exercised, shows that the power to condone
the delay in making an application about
compassionate appointment beyond five
years vests in the State Government; not
the Appointing Authority. Therefore, in this
case, the Commandant, 41st Battalion,
PAC, Ghaziabad, the competent authority,
having found that there was a delay beyond
five years and the application was made in
the sixth year, ought not have determined
the application on merits herself. She
should have referred it to the State
Government for a decision in the matter of
condonation of delay. This reference should
have been made with notice to the
petitioner about it and apprising her also of
the fact that she may file such material as
she thought best. The material, if any, then
filed by the petitioner in support of her case
for condonation of delay beyond five years,
ought have been forwarded to the State
Government. By no stretch of the plain
phraseology of the proviso to Rule 5 of the
Rules of 1974 did the Commandant, acting
as
the
Appointing
Authority,
had
jurisdiction to decide the petitioner's
application,
seeking
compassionate
appointment, once it was made beyond the
period of five years. The guidance in the
matter by the Superintendent of Police
(Establishment)
vide
letter
dated
15.04.2024, asking the Commandant to
decide the matter, as she was the competent
authority, would not confer jurisdiction
upon the Commandant, where, it was not
vested in her, in view of proviso to Rule 5.
Likewise, even our command carried in the
order dated 21.02.2024 passed in Writ - A
No. 12241 of 2020 is to be understood in
the manner that the Commandant was
974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
required to take a decision as much as she
could, to wit, a reference to the State
Government
for
consideration
of
condonation of delay beyond five years,
and, if the delay were condoned by the
State Government, to take a decision on the
merits of the petitioner's claim. Our
command in Writ - A No. 12241 of 2020
could not have been regarded as one
conferring
jurisdiction
upon
the
Commandant, contrary to the mandate of
the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974,
which are rules framed by the Governor
under the proviso to Rule 309 of the
Constitution.

14. Much reliance has been placed
by the learned Standing Counsel on the
circular of the Police Headquarters dated
24.11.2015 issued with reference to the
Government
Order
dated
18.09.2015,
which reads :

सेिायोजन िेतु मृतक आभश्रत के सेिायोजन
के पूिा इस बात का भििेष ध्यान रखा जायेगा भक मृतक
आभश्रत द्वारा मृत कमी की मृत्यु की भतभथ से 05 िषा
के अन्द्िर प्राथाना-पत्र भिया गया िै तथा माूँगे गये पि िेतु
सिी प्रकार से अिं िै एिं उस पि िेतु भनधााररत न्द्यूनतम
आयु एिं िैभक्षक अिाता मृत कमी की मृत्यु के 05 िषा
के अन्द्िर पूणा भकया िो। यभि मृतक आभश्रत द्वारा माूँगे
गये पि िेतु सम्पूणा अिातायें मृत कमी की मृत्यु के 05
िषा के अन्द्िर पूणा करता िै तथा उस पि पर ररभक्त िै, तो
उसके सेिायोजन की कायािािी भनयमानुसार की जायेगी।

15. The learned Standing Counsel
submits most emphatically that beyond five
years, no application for compassionate
appointment can be entertained, neither
under
the
Government
Order
dated
18.09.2015 nor the Police Headquarters'
Circular
dated
24.11.2015
issued
in
pursuance of the Government Order.
Assuming that these say that there can be
no condonation of delay beyond five years,
neither can override the proviso to Rule 5
of the Rules of 1974, as the Rules last
mentioned are statutory in character, being
ones framed under the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution. These would,
without
doubt,
prevail
over
any
Government Order issued in the exercise of
the executive power of the State, and a
fortiori, any administrative circular by the
Police Headquarters.

16. We are constrained to say that
the Commandant, 41st Battalion, PAC,
Ghaziabad,
once
she
reached
the
conclusion that the application was beyond
the period of five years, envisaged under
Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 made in the
sixth year, as she says, should have laid her
hands off the matter and referred it to the
State Government, following the course
that we have indicated. It was certainly not
open to her to mechanically reject the
application on ground that it was made
beyond the prescribed period of five years.

17. In the result, this petition
succeeds
and
stands
allowed.
The
impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed
by the Commandant, 41st Battalion,
Provincial Armed Constabulary, Ghaziabad
is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued
to the Commandant aforesaid to forthwith
forward
all
papers
relating
to
the
petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment to the State Government in the
department concerned, where it will be laid
before the Secretary or other functionary
empowered under the executive rules of
business to take a decision on behalf of the
Government. The petitioner will be given
opportunity to file all necessary material by
the State Government that she considers
relevant in support of her case for
condonation
of
delay.
The
State
12 All. Smt. Sushila Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
975
Government
shall
decide
the
petitioner's claim regarding condonation of
delay under the proviso to Rule 5 of the
Rules of 1974 alone, taking a decision
in the matter within a period of two
months of receipt of records from the
Commandant. If the delay is condoned
by the State Government, the records
would
be
sent
back
to
the
Commandant, 41st Battalion, P.A.C.,
Ghaziabad, who will then pass orders
on the merits of the petitioner's claim
for
compassionate
appointment
in
accordance with law, within a period of
four weeks of receipt of the State
Government's decision.

18. There shall be no order as to
costs.

19. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to the
Commandant, 41st Battalion, Provincial
Armed Constabulary, Ghaziabad through
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ghaziabad.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 975
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ -A No. 9466 of 2018
With
Writ-A No. 10066 of 2018

Smt. Sushila Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Rajeev Narayan Pandey, Atul Kumar Dwivedi,
Shivam Sharma
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Selection - Promotion -
Uttar Pradesh Child Development and
Nutrition (Subordinate) Service (Second
Amendment) Rules, 1998 - Rule 5.

Test of unreasonableness - A policy can be
challenged
on
the
ground
of
being
unreasonable.
If
a
decision
on
a
competent matter is so unreasonable that
no reasonable authority could ever have
come to it, then the courts can interfere.
...It
is
not
what
the
court
considers
unreasonable, a different thing altogether. If it
is what the court considers unreasonable, the
court may very well have different views to that
of a local authority on matters of high public
policy of this kind. The effect of the legislation is
not to set up the court as an arbiter of the
correctness of one view over another. (Para 23)

B. Examining challenge to the Rule laying
down the policy of fixing an upper age
limit of 50 years for Anganwadi workers to
apply to selection for direct recruitment to
the post of Mukhya Sevika on the test of
Wednesbury unreasonableness. (Para 24)

The St. Government amended the Rules of
1992 in the year 1996, whereby it was
provided that 25% posts of Mukhya Sevika
would be filled through interview from
those
Anganwadi
Workers
who
had
completed 10 years of their engagement
as Anganwadi Worker and were not more than
45 years of age as on the first day of the
recruitment year. The Rules were further
amended in the year 1998 by increasing the
aforesaid reservation from 25% to 50%
and the criterion of recruitment was
changed from interview to merit. (Para 25)

The upper age limit for consideration for
selection to the post of Mukhya Sevika
from amongst the persons working as
Anganwadi Workers was previously fixed
as 45 years, which was enhanced to 50
years by the Fourth Amendment Rules.

There is no unreasonableness in the
explanation of the St. that the object