Judgment JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. 1. These nine petitions raise a common question-has the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board erred in advising the Market Committees that auctioneers who are engaged on commission basis should not be above the age of 60 years ? Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in CWP No. 12091 of 2000. These may be briefly noticed. 2. The petitioners are working as auctioneers in the Market Committee, Kaithal, since the year 1963-64. They are given commission on the auctions conducted by them. On Nov. 3, 1992, the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, issued guidelines to the Chairman and Secretaries etc. of the Market Committees in the State. It was pointed out that under Rule 24(5) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), the Market Committees are entitled to "engage auctioneers on commission basis." Vide letter dated 26/08/1982, guidelines had been issued with regard to the engagement of the auctioneers. One of the guidelines was that auctioneers on commission basis should not be above the age of 60 years." This was reiterated. 3. On 22/08/2000, petitioner No. 1 was informed that his "engagement as an auctioneer on commission basis is hereby dispensed with" as he had "crossed the age of 60 years ........." A similar letter was also issued to petitioner No. 2. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. They pray that the orders dated 22/08/2000, copies of which have been produced Annexure P1 and P2 as also the instructions issued by the Board be quashed. 4. The respondents contest the petitioners, claim. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioners had been granted no licence to conduct the auction. They had been merely engaged on fixed rate of commission as envisaged under Bye-law 28 of the Punjab Market Committees Bye-laws, 1963. The policy instructions issued by the Board are in strict conformity with law. The petitioners have no claim. Thus, the writ petitions should be dismissed. 5. Counsel for the parties have been heard. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been contended that the instructions issued by the Board have prospective operation. These cannot be used to disengage the persons who were in service prior to the issue of the letter dated Nov. 3, 1992. The rules prescribe no age for engagement. 5. Counsel for the parties have been heard. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been contended that the instructions issued by the Board have prospective operation. These cannot be used to disengage the persons who were in service prior to the issue of the letter dated Nov. 3, 1992. The rules prescribe no age for engagement. Thus, the petitioners have a right to continue to work as auctioneers irrespective of their present age. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by Mr. J.S. Hooda, who has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 6. Sec. 33(4)(ii) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961, inter alia provides that" the Board may, by order in writing ........... prohibit the doing of any act which, is being done ........... in pursuance of or under cover of this Act or any rule or bye-law ......... if in its opinion, the ........... act is ........... likely to affect adversely the interest of the Committee or of producers or of dealers or of any class of functionaries working in the notified market area concerned." Thus, it is clear that the Board has been conferred with the power to issue directions to the Market Committees. In fact, under the statute the Board has been even empowered to suspend or cancel the licenses granted by the Market Committee to its functionaries. Apparently, in exercise of this power , the Board has reiterated the instructions that the Market Committees should not engage auctioneers who are above the age of 60 years. It has not been shown or even suggested that the instructions are beyond the competence of the Board. 7. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the instructions issued on Nov. 3, 1992, can apply to the persons to be engaged after that date. These, cannot be applied to engage persons who were already working. 8. It is indisputably correct that instructions which adversely affect any person can be only prospective in operation. However, it appears clear to us that the respondents have not applied the instructions retrospectively. In fact, the instructions had been issued in the first instance on 26/08/1982. These were merely reiterated vide letter dated Nov. 3, 1992. 8. It is indisputably correct that instructions which adversely affect any person can be only prospective in operation. However, it appears clear to us that the respondents have not applied the instructions retrospectively. In fact, the instructions had been issued in the first instance on 26/08/1982. These were merely reiterated vide letter dated Nov. 3, 1992. It has after a lapse of almost eight years that the orders for disengagement of the petitioners were issued on the ground that they had crossed the age of 60 years. In fact, it was pointed out that the petitioners were born on Dec. 12, 1935 and 15/05/1939 respectively. Since they had crossed the prescribed age limit their further engagement was discontinued. In doing so, the Committee did not give retrospective operation to the instructions issued by the Board. 9. Mr. Goel, appearing for the petitioners contended that the instructions could be applied only to the persons who were engaged on or after Nov. 3, 1992 and not to the persons who were already serving. 10. We are unable to accept this contention. There is no rule or provision which may entitle the petitioners to work as auctioneers without any limit of age. In fact, we find that in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act, the competent authority has framed the rules. These rules are called the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 . Rule 19 contemplates the grant of licences to various functionaries like brokers, weighmen, measurers, surveyors, godown keepers and palledars. However, there is no rule providing for the issue of a licence to the auctioneers. It however, deserves notice that under Rule 24 which deals with the sale of agricultural produce it has been inter alia provided that "the auction shall not be conducted by any person other than the person engaged by the Committee." The Chief Administrator of the Board has been authorised to permit alternative arrangement. It is thus clear that neither the Act nor the Rules contain any provision which may confer a right on the auctioneers to be treated as employees or to have a security of tenure. At best Rule 24(5) contemplates that a person can be "engaged by the Committee " to conduct an auction. 11. It also deserves notice that in exercise of the powers under the Act, the competent authority has framed the Punjab Market Committees Bye laws, 1963. At best Rule 24(5) contemplates that a person can be "engaged by the Committee " to conduct an auction. 11. It also deserves notice that in exercise of the powers under the Act, the competent authority has framed the Punjab Market Committees Bye laws, 1963. Bye law 28 provides for the remunerations of different market functionaries. Even auction charges have been prescribed. It has been further provided that the "commission fixed ....... shall be charged only by the kacha arhtia (Commission Agent) who in consideration of commission provides his services to sell by auction ............ ". In cases where" "the kacha arhtia do not conduct auction themselves, the auctioneers may be engaged by the Committee on the basis of commission fixed above as auction charges ........." It is, thus, clear that persons are engaged for conducting auctions. They do not hold a post or have any regular employment with the Committee. 12. It is in the background of this factual position that the instructions issued by the Board have to be considered. It is not disputed that the Board is charged with the responsibility of ensuring proper marketing etc. of the agriculture produce. It functions through various officers and agencies like the Market Committees. In order to ensure that the agriculture produce is properly and efficiently auctioned, it has considered it appropriate to direct that persons who are above the age of 60 years should not be engaged to conduct auctions. In doing so, the Board had not violated the mandate of any statute, rules or bye-laws. Equally, the direction given by the Board shall apply to all persons who may have already been engaged or are to be engaged by the concerned Market Committees. 13. The power to fix the upper age limit for a job is not unknown. Even in case of civil servants who have the protection of the Constitution and the statutory rules, the competent authority is entitled to fix the age of retirement. Whenever, the age is changed, the rule applies uniformally to all who are in service on that date or are employed after the change in the rule. It cannot be said that persons who were engaged as auctioneers prior to Nov. Whenever, the age is changed, the rule applies uniformally to all who are in service on that date or are employed after the change in the rule. It cannot be said that persons who were engaged as auctioneers prior to Nov. 3, 1992, shall be entitled to work such till the last day of their lives but those who are subsequently engaged shall cease to function on the day they complete 60 years of age. That would lead to an anomalous result and create inequality. No principles of law has been cited to persuade us to hold that the instructions have been wrongly invoked against the petitioners. Thus, the contention is rejected. 14. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that no age limit has been fixed in case of functionaries contemplated under Rule 19, like brokers and weighmen etc. Thus, the auction of the Board in prescribing the age limit of 60 years in case of auctioneers suffers from the vice of discrimination. The contention has been controverted by Mr. Hooda. It has been pointed out that no one can function as a broker or weighmen etc. unless a licence as contemplated under Rule 19, is granted. The licensees constitute a separate class. The competent authority can issue a licence for a specified period. It has also been invested with the powers to terminate the licences. Thus, the charge of discrimination is untenable. 15. We find that the contention raised on behalf of the respondents is valid. There is a clear distinction between the persons who have been given licences and those like the petitioners who are merely engaged. The persons belonging to these two categories are not similarly situated. Their terms of engagement are totally different. Thus the petitioners cannot complain of discrimination. 16. Mr. Goel, submits that the Act and the Rules having fixed no upper age limit the petitioners should be entitled to continue to function as auctioneers as long as they are physically fit. 17. This is a question of policy. It has to be decided by the competent authority. In the absence of a fixed tenure, the petitioners cannot claim any right. In this situation, the Board has taken a decision that it would not be appropriate to engage persons to work as auctioneers after they had reached the age of 60 years. 17. This is a question of policy. It has to be decided by the competent authority. In the absence of a fixed tenure, the petitioners cannot claim any right. In this situation, the Board has taken a decision that it would not be appropriate to engage persons to work as auctioneers after they had reached the age of 60 years. Such a course of auction is not arbitrary or unfair. In fact, the age of 60 years is being followed even in case of persons holding positions of responsibility despite the fact that working conditions in Government offices are far better than those in market yards. Civil servants retire at the age of 60 years. In case of those working in markets, the age as fixed by the Board, cannot be said to be unreasonable or unfair. 18. No other point has been raised. 19. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petitions. Consequently, all the nine petitions are dismissed. It is held that the instructions issued by the Board are valid. Consequently, the action taken by the respective Market Committees is legal. Resultantly, there is no ground to interfere. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.