JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a group of petitions filed by the tourist guides from Agra. The parties 6rc agree that tho writ petition No. 10714 of 1991 Which has been bled by Virendra Kumar Chaddha be treated as the leading case. Consequently, in this petition, the Standing Counsel fur the Union of India has tiled counter-affidavits on behalf of the Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi as well as on behalf of the Tourist Department, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. Tourist guides can be dived d into two categories, one category are those tourist guides, who work as professional guides for the national and international tourists, and, the other category is known as hereditary guides, who work as guides in the historical monuments of Agra mainly at five monuments, namely, Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri, Agra Fort, Sikandara and Etmauddaula. Some of the petitioners in this group of petitions alleged that they are working as professional guides while rest that claim they are working as hereditary guides for the national and international tourists. All the petitioners are, however, working as guides at Agra and their grievance is that they are being restrained by the Tourist Department as well as the Department of At cbaeologioal Survey of India (hereinafter referred to as Archaeological Department) to work as guides at the monuments of Agra on the ground that they cannot work unless they obtain a licence from the Archaeological Department and it is this action of the respondents Which is the subject of challenge in these petitions. 3. Writ Petition No. 10714 of 1991 has been filed with the allegation that the petitioner is a tourist guide who has been earning his livelihood by working as professional guide for the national and international tourists. It has been averred that the Department of Archaeological as well as the Department of Tourist are adopting different and arbitrary criteria viz., age limits educational qualifications etc. for issue of the licence to guides. 4. Petitioner bag stated that licence has been issued to some of the guides by the Archaeological Department though they have not obtained permit from the Department of Tourism and they are working without any interference as professional guides in Agra. for issue of the licence to guides. 4. Petitioner bag stated that licence has been issued to some of the guides by the Archaeological Department though they have not obtained permit from the Department of Tourism and they are working without any interference as professional guides in Agra. It has been further averred in the petition that the officers of the Department of Tourism as well as the Department of Archaeology are interfering with the working of petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have not been issued licences by the Department of Archaeology. With these allegations, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to carry on his business as guides and without obtaining a licence from the Archaeological Survey of India and consequently, certain provisions of the Act and Rules which govern the licences has also been challenged by the petitioner. The petition relates to a guides who seeks to work as a tourist guide but is not a hereditary guide. 5. It is necessary to give a reference to three more petitions in particular. 6. Writ petition No. 9032 of 1988 has been filed by Tourist Guide Welfare Association, Fatehpur Sikri, district Agra and Writ Petition No. 18584 of 1989 has been filed by Mohd. Sharif Khan and others. These petitions have been filed by the so-called hereditary guides the case of the hereditary guides is that they have been carrying on the business of working as pi of passional guides for the national and international tourists at Agra and have no source of livelihood except the aforesaid profession which they are carrying on the same way at their ancestors before them. It has been averred that hereditary guides as well as their ancestors have been working on the strength of permanent permission/Hence granted to them by Sajjada Nashin of Dargab. Their cases are that since they have been granted permission/licence by Sajjada Nashin of Dargah of Fatehpur Sikri, they are entitled to carry on their profession as guides and the Department of Tourism as well as Department of Archaeology cannot insist on them for taking licence before they carry on profession as tourist guides. the hereditary guides have also challenged the validity of certain provisions of the Act and Rules In support of these submissions. 7. the hereditary guides have also challenged the validity of certain provisions of the Act and Rules In support of these submissions. 7. In Writ Petition No. 9199 of 1990, R.M. Bohra and another v. Union of India the petitioners have challenged the condition No. 17 laid down by the Archaeological Department a6 one of the conditions for the grant of the licence providing for age of superannuation at the age of sixty years. 8. We have, consequently, to consider the question raised in this group of petitions as to whether the tourist guides nod the so-called hereditary guides can carry on their profession without obtaining a licence from the Department of Tourism or Archaeological Survey of India and whether restrictions of age can be placed upon them by tho Union of India. 9. We have heard Sri G. C. Bhattaoharya, Sri Sunil Ambwani, Sri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sri Saghir Ahmad and other counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Poonam Srivastava learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India appearing for the Department of Tourism as well as for the Department of Archaeological Survey of India. 10. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, it is necessary to analyse the provisions of the Act and Rules which govern the issue of licences to tourist guides. 11. In the year 1958, the Parliament enacted the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') providing for preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites end remains of national importance, for the regulation of archaeological excavation and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and other like objects. Section 2 (a) of the Act defines what is "ancient monument." In terms of the definition, it means any structure, erection or monument, etc., which it of historical, archaeological or artistic interest and which has been in existence for not less than one hundred years. Section 2 (j) of the Act defines "protected monument" which means an ancient monument which is declared to be of national importance by or under this Act. Section 2 (j) of the Act defines "protected monument" which means an ancient monument which is declared to be of national importance by or under this Act. Section 3 of the Act is a deeming clause and it provides that all ancient and historical monuments and all archaeological sites and remain which have been declared by the Ancient Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951, or by Section 126 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 to be of national importance shall be deemed to be ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites and remains declared to be of national importance for the purposes of this Act. It is not disputed by the parties that the monuments at Agra in relation to Which the tourist guides have raised the present dispute ere protected monuments which are ancient monuments declared to be of national importance. 12. Section 18 of the Act which will be relevant for determining the controversy raised in these petitions is quoted below : "18. Right of accedes to protected monuments. - Subject to any rules made under this Act, the public shall have a right of access to any protected monument." 13. The above Section provides that the public shall have a right of access to any protected monument but the said right of access shell be subject to any rules made under the Act, Section 38 of the Act gives power to the Central Government to roske rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. Section 38 (2) (c) in particular gives power to the Central Government to frame rules to provide for right of access the public to a protected monument and the fee, if any, to be charged therefor. 14. Under powers conferred under Section 38 of the Act, the Central Government by a notification dated 15-10-1959 made the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules'). These were published in the Gazette dated 8-8-1959. Rule 8 provided for tho prohibition of certain acts within monuments. 14. Under powers conferred under Section 38 of the Act, the Central Government by a notification dated 15-10-1959 made the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules'). These were published in the Gazette dated 8-8-1959. Rule 8 provided for tho prohibition of certain acts within monuments. Rule 8 (d) which is relevant for the purposes of these petitions is quoted below; "hawk (t sell any goa or wares or canvas any custom for such goods or wares or display any advertisement in any form or show a visitor round for monetary consideration, except under the authority of, or under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by, an archaeological officer." 15. On a reading of Section 18 of the Act along with Rule 8 (d) of the Rules, it becomes clear that there is a restriction placed upon a person who enters within a protected monument along with a visitor for monetary conation to show the said visitor the protected monuments. It is persons who show the visitor for monetary consideration who are known as guides. Restrictions have been placed under the Rule that they cannot Act as guides except under the authority of or under in accordance with the conditions of licence granted by an archaeological officer. 16. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised various contentions before us in support of their petitions. The first contention raised is that Rule 8 (d) of the Act is ultra vires the Act and also since no guidelines have been provided as to in what manner the licences shall be issued by the archaeological officer, the rule is invalid. The second argument is that the Tourist Department of the Government of India has no jurisdiction whatsoever to interfere with the grant of licence by the archaeological officer who is the competent authority and as such the action of the Tourist Department of the Government of India is wholly without jurisdiction. The third submission made on behalf of the hereditary guides s that holding a test by the Tourist Department of the Government of India is an unreasonable restriction on their rights to carry on their profession and consequently, there is violation of Article 19 (i) (g) of the Constitution of India. The third submission made on behalf of the hereditary guides s that holding a test by the Tourist Department of the Government of India is an unreasonable restriction on their rights to carry on their profession and consequently, there is violation of Article 19 (i) (g) of the Constitution of India. The last submission raised is that in any case, even if, the terms and conditions laid down upon the approved guides is valid, Clause 17 of the terms and conditions restricting the age to Sixty years is wholly invalid. 17. Judicial notice has to be taken of the fact that the tourism is one of the largest foreign exchange earners for India. Tourism planners always rightly feel that if only tourism were given the right environment to grow, India will earn a huge amount of foreign exchange. 18. The Department of Tourism is responsible for the promotion of India abroad as a holiday and Tourism, destination, and development of tourism infrastructure and facilities in the country. It also performs regulatory functions in the field of tourism. 19 With a view to attract tourists and improve the whole tourist management the Department of Tourism has set up the Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel management, National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology and the Indian Tourism Development Corporation (1TDC) which cow runs a chain of Hotels for the benefit of the tourists. Tourism Department has numerous offices in India and abroad. The basic idea, for which the Tourist Department is established, is to cater to the needs of the tourists and to take case of their welfare in order to augment tourism tor the benefit of the country. 20. One of the primary aims of any national or international tourist is to see the ancient monuments in the country which are of national importance. Ancient monuments of national importance are under the control of the Archaeological Survey of India and as a consequence thereof, both the Departments have to work in union to project a good image of the country in the world. 21. Ancient monuments of national importance are under the control of the Archaeological Survey of India and as a consequence thereof, both the Departments have to work in union to project a good image of the country in the world. 21. The duties of the Department of Tourism and the Department of the Archaeological Survey of India are so interlinked that they have to work in harmony in order to see that in the country, there is a development of national and international tourism and there is sufficient protection for the tourist whether they are national or international while they are on the tour. It is their duty to see to the welfare of the tourists and also ensure that whatever information is given to them about the country and the monuments are based one coattest historical facts. 22. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners have to be examined in the above light. The first aspect of the first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 8 d of the Act is ultra vires the Act. In order to examine this aspect, it is necessary to examine a few provisions of the Act. As already stated, the Act has been promulgated for the preservation of the ancient and historical monument and archaeological sites and remains of national importance. The monuments in respect of which the present dispute is raised are, undoubtedly, protected monuments within the meaning of the words "protected monument'*, as defined under the Act. The term "protected area" has also been defined in the Act which means any archaeological site and remains which is declared to be of national importance by or under this Act. The object of the Act, therefore is to preserve not only the national monuments but also sites of the ancient monuments of national importance. 23. Section 18 of tho Act, which restricts the right of access to protected monuments, reads as under i "13. Subject to any rules made under this Act, the public shall have a right of access to any protected monument." 24. Section 19 of the Act empowers the Central Government to place restrictions on the enjoyment of property rights in protected areas. Subject to any rules made under this Act, the public shall have a right of access to any protected monument." 24. Section 19 of the Act empowers the Central Government to place restrictions on the enjoyment of property rights in protected areas. It dearly provides that no person, including tho owner or occupier of a protected area, shall construct any building within the protected area or carry on any mining, quarrying, excavating, blasting or any operation of a like nature in such area, or utilise such area or any part thereof in any other manner without the permission of the 'Central Government. This section further empowers the Central Government to direct that any building constructed by any person within the protected area shall be removed within a specified person. Sub-clause (1) of Section 19 of the Act, which is relevant, is quoted below j "19 (1) No person, including the owner or occupier of a protected area, shall construct any building within the protected area or carry on any mining, quarrying, excavating, blasting or any operation of a like nature in small area or utilise such area or any part thereof in any other carer without the permission of the Central Government." 25. On a reading of Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, it is dear that both the user of the protected area as well as the access to protected monuments can be regulated by the Central Government. No person has any absolute right of access to any protected monument nor does he have any right of carrying on any business, that is, utilising sub protected area in any manner he likes. These sections have been enacted in order to protect both the monuments as well as the protected areas. 26. Section 38 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. It is in order to carry out the purposes of the Act that the Central Government has made the Rules, which includes Rule 8 (d). Rule 8 (d) only prohibits a person from hawking or selling any goods or wares or canvass any custom for such goods or wares or display any advertisement in any form or show a visitor round for monetary consideration except under the authority of, or under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by, an archaeological officer. Rule 8 (d) only prohibits a person from hawking or selling any goods or wares or canvass any custom for such goods or wares or display any advertisement in any form or show a visitor round for monetary consideration except under the authority of, or under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by, an archaeological officer. Rule 8 (d), consequently, does not prohibit completely access of any person to any protected monuments or to carry on any business in such protected moments or protected area, but only pieces restrictions. So far as the tourist s ides are concerned, the restriction has been placed that they cannot show the visitor round for monetary consideration except under the authority of, order and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by an officer. In our opinion, the restriction placed on the right of a person to Act as a tourist guide cannot be said to be beyond the object of the Act. The main object of the Act is to project and preserve the ancient monuments and it is in order to achieve that very object that Rule 8 (d) has ix a craned by the Central Government under Section 38 of the Act. It cannot be said, therefore, that Rule 8 (d) is ultra vires the Act. 27. In M/s. Paramount Studio and others v. The Union of India and others, AIR 1981 Allahabad 186, a similar question arose in respect of persons who claimed to be doing photographers business within the protected monuments and the protected area. While considering this question, it has been observed by this Court as under ; "We find that the provisions of clause (d) of Rule 8 are in conformity with the object of the Act and they have been made with the purpose of regulating the access of the visitors to the monuments and the use of the precincts of the monuments by those visitors. No person can claim as of right that he shall carry on business at a place which is not owned by him or acquired by him or for which he does not have the requisite permission. Tho rule in question not only regulates the actual entry in the precincts of the monuments but also controls the user or the monument. No person can claim as of right that he shall carry on business at a place which is not owned by him or acquired by him or for which he does not have the requisite permission. Tho rule in question not only regulates the actual entry in the precincts of the monuments but also controls the user or the monument. the Act and the rules in question raise the citizens' sense or responsibility in protecting and maintaining these monuments of national importance in their original form." 28. We agree with the observations made in the case of M/s. Paramount Studio and others v. The Union of India and others (Supra). Accordingly, we do not agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 8 (d) is ultra vires the Act. 29. The second aspect of the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that since no guidelines have been provided as to in what manner the licences shall be issued by the archaeological officer. Rule 8-(d) of the Act is invalid. Section 18 of the Act specifically provides that the public shall have a right of access to any protected monuments subject to any rules made under this Act. Section 38 as already observed above empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. Rule 8 (a) to (g) lays down prohibition of certain Acts within the protected monuments. Rule 8 (d) provides that in case person wants to show a visitor round for monetary consideration, this can be done only in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by an archaeological officer. The person who shows the visitor round for monetary consideration is popularly known as a guide' to a visitor. A guide, consequently, can accompany a visitor for monetary consideration if he has obtained a licence. The purpose for enacting the Act and framing the rules is to provide for preservation of ancient historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance and for the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and other like objects. It is to achieve this purpose that the rules provide for obtaining a licence by the guides. It is to achieve this purpose that the rules provide for obtaining a licence by the guides. It is in accord with the object of the Act The word archaeological officer' has been defined in Section 2 (o) of the Act which means an officer of the Department of Archaeology of the Government of India not lower in rank than the Assistant Superintendent of Archaeology. Toe power, consequently, to grant a licence to a tourist guide is given to a higher officer who is not lower in rank to that of an Assistant Superintendent Archaeology. This by itself is a sufficient safeguard to ensure that power to grant licence is not exercised arbitrarily. 30. Whet is after all the meaning of the word 'guide' ?. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol. I, III Edition, guide' has been defined to mean- "one v ho leads or shows the way especially to a traveller in a strange country ; one who is hired to conduct a traveller or tourist, and to point out objects of interest. "Similarly in Chamber's 70tb Century Dictionary (Revised Edition) 'guide' has been defined as - one who conducts travellers tourists, mountaineers etc.' It is, therefore, clear that a guide is a person who is hired to conduct tourists or travellers and to point out objects of interest. 31. The very word tourist' itself implies that a person can be tourist guide provided be is qualified to conduct a traveller or a tourist to point out objects of interest in the case of protected monuments, namely, ancient monuments of national importance. It is implied in the profession of the tourist that the tourist must know each and everything about the ancient monuments, the history of the country and archaeological aspect of the monuments. It is implied in the profession of the tourist that the tourist must know each and everything about the ancient monuments, the history of the country and archaeological aspect of the monuments. He must know the language in order to enable him to guide the tourist and he must have proper moral values so that he can properly represent the country and also to guide not only national but also international tourists Under Rule 8 (d) when an archaeological officer is obliged to grant a licence to a person who wants to carry on the business of tourist guide, it is incumbent upon the said archaeological officer to see that the said person can really Act as a tourist guide to national as well as international tourists These by itself are sufficient guide lines for the purpose of determining as to whether a person is entitled to get a licence of tourist guide or not. In the circumstances, we do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner when it is urged that rule 8 (d) is ultra vires as no guidelines have been provided in the said rule for tho manner of issue of licence. 32. In Union of India v. H.R. Patankar, AIR 1984 SC 1587 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that in case of statutory rules if the rules are silent on any particular subject. It is competent to the Government by executive order to make rules to fill in the lacuna in the statutory rules. The Government is, consequently, empowered to issue executive orders laying down the detained guidelines as to how the licences could be issued to the persons who apply for becoming tourist guides. 33. In the instant case, counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Union of India. Ore counter-affidavit has been filed on the 20th May, 1992 in Writ Petition No. 10714 of 1991 and a supplementary counter-affidavit was filed on the 7th of July, 1991 in the same writ petition. In the counter and supplementary counter-affidavits detailed facts have been stated to show that the Tourist Department of the Government of India has framed guidelines for the selection of guides (Annexure C.A III to the counter-affidavit). It lays down the academic qualifications required, the manner in which written and oral tests will be held and who will constitute the screening Committee and the interview Committee. It lays down the academic qualifications required, the manner in which written and oral tests will be held and who will constitute the screening Committee and the interview Committee. The Commit toes are high powered Committees consisting amongst others senior officers of the Archaeological Department as well as tho Tourist Department. In the counter-affidavit, it has been further stated that after enactment of the Act in 1958 and the Rules in 1959, a joint meeting was held on 11-7-1960 between the Department of Tourism and the Department of Archaeological Survey of India to regulate the functioning of guides. In the said meeting, it was agreed upon that the Department of Tourism shall hold regular training course for the purpose of selecting guides and once the persons pass those teat the licences issued by the Tourist Department would be countersigned by the Archaeological Officer under Rule 8 (d) of the Act. We have already observed above that the case of tourists whether national or international, the Department of Tourism has to work in unison with the Department of Archaeological Survey of India and consequently, the guidelines laid down for the issue of the licence under Rule 8 id) was decided in a joint meeting of both the Departments held on 11-4-1960. It was specifically laid down that weightage would be given to those who have knowledge of foreign languages other than English, knowledge of history, culture and traditions of India with particular reference to monuments and other land marks in the region. A written test has been proposed to be held under the guidelines on the subjects of knowledge of monuments around the area, questions on history and general knowledge. Tho guide lines also provided for the interview. The interview committee was to keep in mind the following factors: (a) Personality including personal appearance, (b) Diction including fluency in expression, (c) Leadership to conduct groups of tourist FITs, (d) Knowledge of the places of tourists including monuments, land- marks culture, history, tradition, philosophy, Indian way of life, etc. The terms and conditions were also laid down in the joint meeting for the approved guides. They have been attached as Annexure C.A IV to the above counter-affidavit. 34. The terms and conditions were also laid down in the joint meeting for the approved guides. They have been attached as Annexure C.A IV to the above counter-affidavit. 34. In view of the above mentioned guidelines laid down by the Government of India read with Rule 8 (d) of the Rules, it cannot be said that any arbitrary discretion has been given to the archaeological officer to grant a licence or not to grant a licence. In our opinion, we do not find any force, consequently, in this part of tho contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 35. The second contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Tourist Department of Government has no Jurisdiction to interference by the grant of the licence by the archaeological officer who is competent authority and as such the -action of the Tourist Department is wholly without jurisdiction. We are unable to agree with this contention. It is primary object of the Tourist Department to see that the tourism is promoted of India. It is also the duty of the Tourism Department to see that tourists whether they are national or international are properly looked after and they are also able to visit the various places of interest in the country. Practically over tourist is interested in visiting the protected monuments, namely, ancient monuments of national importance and consequently, if tourist guide is to accompany a tourist inside the protected monuments, the Tourist Department has to see that the tourist's welfare is maintained, it has to ensure that the tourist is given proper information and the information which is given to the tourist is actually in accord with the history and the culture of the country, In fact the work of a tourist guide is of such great importance that any lapse on the part of the guide would affect the prestige of the country. It is, consequently, essential that the Department of Tourism works in consonance with the Department t of Archaeology and it cannot possibly be said that Joint decision taken by the Tourism Debarment with the Department of Archaeology would in any manner be invalid in law. Licence, in any case, which is issued to a person is always by an archaeological officer as required under Rule 8 (d) of tho Rules. Licence, in any case, which is issued to a person is always by an archaeological officer as required under Rule 8 (d) of tho Rules. It may be that with the agreement of the Department of Archaeology, the Tourist Department may be holding the test under their authority but that does not mean that the power of the archaeological officer has been delegated to the Tourist Department. In our opinion, consequently, it can not be said that merely because the Tourist Department is associated with the issue of the licence to tourist guide, the whole procedure is without jurisdiction. The second submission is, therefore, in our opinion, not well founded. 36. In order to consider the third submission made on behalf of the hereditary guides it is necessary to point out that in accordance with the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, there are two sets of guides. One are those guides of the Archaeological Survey of India, who work at a particular monuments for which the licence has been issued. The other types are those which are approved by the Department of Tourism and selected by the selection committee in accordance with the criteria and guidelines laid down. It has to be borne in mind that there may be guides approved by the Tourist Department who do not visit protected monuments. In those cases, it is not necessary to obtain a licence from the archaeological officer under Rule 8 (d). But in case of those very guides approved by the Tourist Department in case they enter with a tourist in a protected monuments then it is incumbent upon the said guide to obtain a licence from the archaeological officer. A licence under Rule 8 (d) is only necessary in the case of guides for protected monuments. In view of Rule 8 (d), it is clear that it is incumbent upon him to obtain a licence under Rule 8 (d) of the Act and in case be does not obtain licence, he cannot carry on his profession as a guide in the said protected monuments. The petitioners in the present petitions are grids who want to carry on their profession in the protected monuments. Some of them call themselves as hereditary guides. The petitioners in the present petitions are grids who want to carry on their profession in the protected monuments. Some of them call themselves as hereditary guides. Their argument is that holding of a test by the Tourist Department is an unreasonable restriction on their right to carry on their profession and consequently, is in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India provides that all citizens shall have a right to practise any profession, or carry on any occupation, trade or business. Sub clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, however, further provides that; "Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making ana law relating to - (i) the professional or technical qualification necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise." 37. In view of Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India, it is dear that the State can make reasonable restrictions on the exercise of a right under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and can also make law relating to technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession. In the instant case, as already held above, the tourist guides require knowledge in regard to tho various subjects of history, architecture, language etc. Holding of a test by the Tourist Department for the purpose of granting a licence under Rule 8 (d) of the Rules to a tourist guide cannot be said to be an unreasonable restriction on the right of a guide to carry on his profession of a tourist guide. Holding of a test by the Tourist Department for the purpose of granting a licence under Rule 8 (d) of the Rules to a tourist guide cannot be said to be an unreasonable restriction on the right of a guide to carry on his profession of a tourist guide. In case a person does not have knowledge of the various subjects required to make him a tourist guide, he cannot be permitted to array on the said profession. In our, opinion, consequently, the third submission made by the learned counsel is without substance. 38. The last sub missing made on behalf of the petitioner is a challenge to she validity of clause 17 restricting the age of carrying on the profession of a tourist guide to sixty years. Clause 17 of the terms and conditions of approved guides provides as follows : "When a guide 'attains the age of sixty years, the identity card issued to him/her will not be renewed further." 39. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India in paragraph 23, the reason has been given at to why this restriction has been imposed. It is stated that the age limit of sixty years was fixed after considerable thought and weighing all pros and cons The Job of a guide requires lot of physical strain, on many occasions the tourist guide has to take a group early in the morphing to outside station and return late night causing extreme physical strain. In addition to the strain, it is further accentuated, since the guide has to chimp steps, walk long structures at the monuments etc. Normally, a person after attaining the age of sixty years tends to lack physical stamina which the job demands. It was in these circumstances that clause 17 was laid down as one of the conditions. These conditions has been existing since 1-5-1978. 40. Validity of Clause 17 came up for consideration in writ petition No. 948 of 1970 J.K. Agarwal v. Union of India in Delhi High Court. Hon'ble S.B Wad, J. (as he then was) by his judgment dated 16-5-1980 held that this condition was valid. The learned Judge in the said judgment observed as follows ; "I do not think that the profession of tourist guides own be compared to a profession of lawyers and doctors. Hon'ble S.B Wad, J. (as he then was) by his judgment dated 16-5-1980 held that this condition was valid. The learned Judge in the said judgment observed as follows ; "I do not think that the profession of tourist guides own be compared to a profession of lawyers and doctors. The said professions are primarily concerned with the mental skills and mental faculties. On the other hand, a tourist guide is required to perform the function which is basically physical or manual The improvement of general health standard is no ground for not fixing the upper age limit. In most of the employments (Government as well as private), the persons are retired at the age of 58. It is true that there is no such thing as retirement in a profession. In that sense a private tourist guide, who does nut bother about the Government's approval, is free to carry on his profession as long as he wants. There would be no age bar. However, the considerations are different when it comes to the approval of guides by Government. A guide who has crossed the age of sixty years may not develop any physical handicap. But if the younger guides are available they would be more energetic and would ultimately be of greater assistance to the tourist. The validity of the age limit prescribed by Clause 17 cannot be tested merely on the basis of the physical fitness of a particular guide. Young energetic guide would certainly promote better tourism business in companion. I, therefore, hold that Clause 17 is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable." 41. We respectfully agree with the reasons given by Hon'ble S.B. Wad, J. in the above decision for upholding the validity of Clause 17. We are, consequently, of the opinion that there is no force in the last submission of the petitioners that Clause 17 of the terms and conditions restricting the age to sixty years is invalid. 42 the resultant effect of the above discussion is that in case a person wants to be a tourist guide and wants to take a visitor round for monetary consideration in protected monuments, he can do so only if he obtains a licence by an archaeological officer otherwise he cannot act as tourist guide in a protected monument. The petitioners admittedly have not taken any licence from the archaeological officer. The petitioners admittedly have not taken any licence from the archaeological officer. The case of some of the petitioners who allege that they are hereditary guides is that they are working as guides on the strength of permanent permission/licence granted to them by Sajjada Nashin of Dargah. In writ petition No.9032 of 1988 Tourist Guide Welfare Association v. Union of India, permission vide Annexure-1-A has been given to one Shatnsbuddin Kban. This permission has been granted by Sajjada Nashin of Dargah, Fatehpur Sikari, Agra. Tourist guides cannot be permitted to function on any permanent permissio licence granted by Sajjada Nashin. He has no Jurisdiction to grant such a licence. The only authority which could gen the licence is the archaeological officer under Rule 8 (d) of the Rules and as such the petitioners have no right to Barry on the profession of a guide unless they obtain a licence from the archaeological officer. We, consequently, find no merit in any of the group of petitions filed in this Court. 43. At the time of the filing of these petitions, interim orders were granted by the Court by virtue of which the petitioners were permitted to carry on the business of guides and the respondents were restrained from interfering with their working. In the guidelines for the grant of licence certain minimum be has been prescribed. By lapse of time most of the petitioners must have become average. The result would be that the petitioners would not be able to sit for the examination or attend the course Which the Department of Tourism may hold enabling the petitioners to obtain a licence. In the interest of justice, consequently, we direct that the Tourism Department in or junction with the Department of Archaeology shall within a period of six month from today held a test or conduct a course to enable the petitioners and other hereditary guides to appear at the test or to prosecute the said course. Their applications for permission to appear in the test or to pursue the course shall or t be refused on the ground that they have now become average. In case of these petitioners who succeed in the test or who pursues the course successfully, licences shall be issued to them by the Archaeological officer in accordance with law, 44. Their applications for permission to appear in the test or to pursue the course shall or t be refused on the ground that they have now become average. In case of these petitioners who succeed in the test or who pursues the course successfully, licences shall be issued to them by the Archaeological officer in accordance with law, 44. With the above directions, this writ petition and the other petitions of this group are hereby dismissed. The interim orders passed in these petitions a:e hereby vacated. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.