Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 102 (HP)

Rekha Devi v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2012-03-19

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. - Petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Raja, Post Office Tramanth, Tehsil Jogindernagar. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she has crossed the maximum age prescribed under the scheme/guidelines. Petitioner has assailed clause (c) of para 4 of the Scheme/Guidelines as notified on 29.5.2006 whereby the age between 21 to 45 years has been prescribed for the post of Anganwadi Worker. 2. Mr. Varun Chandel has strenuously argued that the eligibility criteria of age prescribed between 21 to 45 years is arbitrary. He has then argued that the application of the petitioner could not be rejected merely on the ground that she has crossed the age of 45 years. 3. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the objective of the scheme, the age between 21 to 45 years has been fixed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings. 5. The main objective of the scheme notified on 29.5.2006 is to ensure regular integrated delivery of package of early childhood services to children expectant and nursing mothers from the focal point and also to provide an opportunity for the local women of the State to work/serve on voluntary basis in Anganwadi Centres opened under I.C.D.S. Scheme on fixed monthly honorarium. The Anganwadi Worker has to look after the children upto the age of 6 years and also expectant and nursing mother s. It is in this view of this objective that the age between 21 to 45 years has been prescribed for the candidates to be appointed as Anganwadi Workers. The woman who is appointed as Anganwadi Worker must be energetic and capable physically and mentally to look after the children upto the age of 6 years and also expectant and nursing mothers. The petitioner has already crossed the age of 50 years in 2006. Now, her age is 56 years. There is intelligible differentia so as to exclude the candidates, who have not attained the age of 21 years and have crossed the age of 45 years with the objective to appoint young and energetic candidates. It is for the employer to prescribe minimum or maximum age. The judicial scope in these matters is very limited. There is intelligible differentia so as to exclude the candidates, who have not attained the age of 21 years and have crossed the age of 45 years with the objective to appoint young and energetic candidates. It is for the employer to prescribe minimum or maximum age. The judicial scope in these matters is very limited. It is only in those cases where the age prescribed is arbitrary or unreasonable the courts may interfere. In the instant case, the prescription of age between 21 to 45 years is reasonable and legal. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.