ORDER : PRANAV TRIVEDI, J. 1. The present appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent are filed by the appellants – original petitioners assailing the correctness and validity of the common order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9589 of 2017 with Special Civil Application No. 10496 of 2017. As both the appeals have common issue, they are taken up together for hearing. The factual aspects considered in Special Civil Application No. 9589 of 2017 are taken as a lead matter. 2. The prayers that were made in the writ petition was to give direction to respondent no. 1 to amend the resolution dated 13.12.2005 and further to add word “Urban” by way of such amendment. It was also prayed that direction be given to respondent no. 4 - Rajkot Municipal Corporation to implement the direction of Programme Officer, ICDS letter dated 29.02.2016 and to appoint petitioner as “Supervisor” . 3. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the Government Resolution was pleased to hold that there is no discriminatory clause in the policy and that the argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioners that ‘Anganwadi Workers’ who were working under the District Development Officer were given priority and as such, they stole the march over the petitioners for promotion to the post of ‘Mukhya Sevika’ is meritless and the procedure for promotion to the posts of Mukhya Sevika was undertaken by two separate establishments, depending upon the exigencies which existed there. On such findings, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss both the petitions. 4. The factual matrix which has led to filing of the appeal was that the appellant – original petitioner was working as ‘Anganwadi Worker’ under the Child Development Schemes of the Government of Gujarat. The petitioner was appointed as ‘Anganwadi Worker’ on 11.11.1982 by the respondent – Corporation and, therefore, the age of retirement of the petitioner was 10.11.2020. The writ petition was preferred in the year 2017 and it was the case of the petitioner that she had educational qualification of having passed 12th standard and experience of 35 long years as ‘Anganwadi Worker’, and as such, she deserves to be appointed as Supervisor as per seniority. The writ petition was preferred in the year 2017 and it was the case of the petitioner that she had educational qualification of having passed 12th standard and experience of 35 long years as ‘Anganwadi Worker’, and as such, she deserves to be appointed as Supervisor as per seniority. It was the case of the petitioner that according to the selection criteria, the petitioner achieved 25 marks and even in seniority list, she was show at Serial No. 5 as on 01.10.2010. Thus, it is the case of the appellant that she was working as Anganwadi Worker since the year 1982 and her date of retirement was 10.11.2020 and as such, she should be considered for the post of Mukhya Sevika. It is further the case of the appellant that vide communication dated 19.07.2012 the appellant requested the Rajkot Municipal Corporation to consider her case for promotion to the post of Mukhya Sevika, which was not considered and, therefore, the appellant has to approach this Court by way of filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 9598 of 2017. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition and allied matter by common order dated 07.07.2022 which is the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeals before us. 5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Kirtan Mistry appearing for the appellants. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Mistry has contended that the appellants - original petitioners were working as ‘Anganwadi Worker’ since the year 1982 and they were at Serial No. 1 and Serial No. 5 respectively as per the seniority list as on 01.10.2020 and as such, they ought to have been given promotion to the post of Mukhya Sevika. However, the learned Single Judge has not considered their case and based upon the interpretation of Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005, has rejected the writ petitions. 5.2. Learned advocate Mr. Mistry has further contended that the Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005 specifically mentions that 50% of the Supervisor posts have to be filled up from ‘Anganwadi Workers as per the seniority lists and the appellants had worked as Anganwadi Workers for more than 35 years. 5.2. Learned advocate Mr. Mistry has further contended that the Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005 specifically mentions that 50% of the Supervisor posts have to be filled up from ‘Anganwadi Workers as per the seniority lists and the appellants had worked as Anganwadi Workers for more than 35 years. Therefore, without considering the fact that the ‘Anganwadi Workers working under the District Development Panchayats are given promotion to the post of Mukhya Sevika through such Government Resolution, the Anganwadi Workers who worked in the establishment of Municipal Corporation also should be given such benefit. In this context, learned advocate for the appellants has prayed to entertain the present appeals. 6. Having perused the record, it transpires that there is no dispute that the Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005 laid down qualification for promotional post to totally different establishment. There was specific averment that power of nomination was qua Anganwadi Worker of District Panchayat. By filing the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for amendment in Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005 so that the case of nomination of the appellant who is in totally different establishments can be considered. Further, it can also be observed that when respondent – Rajkot Municipal Corporation, that is the establishment where the appellants are working as Anganwadi Worker undertook the exercise of promoting Anganwadi Workers to Mukhya Sevika, the appellants – original petitioners had already crossed the age limit of 45 years. Therefore, the Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005 would not be applicable to the appellants who were working on the said establishments. Therefore, on one hand, the appellants – original petitioners had crossed the age limit when their own establishment had undertaken such exercise. On the other hand, the appellants – original petitioners are seeking amendment in the Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005 so that their case for promotion to Mukhya Sevika – Class-III can be considered when there was a nomination from other establishments. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court such submission of the appellants cannot be countenanced and as such, the Government Resolution cannot be amended suitably so that the case of the appellants can fit in. In this context, the learned Single Judge has categorically observed in paragraph 6 to 10, since relevant, the same is reproduced here-under :- “[6] Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. In this context, the learned Single Judge has categorically observed in paragraph 6 to 10, since relevant, the same is reproduced here-under :- “[6] Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. At the outset, though the petitioners have amended the petition by adding prayer clause- G, there is nothing on record in the form of pleadings or any other document or arguments to indicate that the benefit of the Notification dated 13.12.2015 has not been extended to all the Anganwadi Workers in the State of Gujarat. In absence of any factual matrix, the amended portion of the petition is not considered at this stage, leaving it open in future if the necessary material is placed on record to consider accordingly at the relevant stage. [7] In so far as the case of the petitioners is concerned, the policy for promotion the post of Mukhya Sevika appears to be adopted by a Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005 which laid down the detailed policy and the qualification for such promotion. There is no dispute in the fact that amongst the requirement of other criterion, the upper age limit was fixed at the age of 45 years which if the procedure is to be undertaken for the first time was relaxed till the age of 48 years which was by subsequent resolution of 2007. From the pleadings placed on record, the date of birth is 17.07.1962 and 30.09.1962. Accordingly, considering the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents, it would be necessary to reproduce the averments made on affidavit on behalf of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, which would read as under:- “1. The Respondent no.4 most respectfully submits that the petitioner herein was appointed as Honorary Anganwadi Worker through order dated 11.11.82 and a copy thereof is annexed as ANNEXURE-A. The respnt. no.4 submits that as stated in affidavit in reply, the post of Mukhya Sevika, Class-III are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment and nomination from amongst Honorary Anganvadi Workers in the ratio of 1:1 as per the notification dated 19.3.04 issued by Govt. of Gujarat through its Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development Dept. and Recruitment Rules for the cadre of Mukhya Sevika, Class-Ill known as Mukhya Sevika [Class-III] Panchayat Service] Recruitment Rules, 2004 annexed as Annexure-A to the Affidavit in Reply. of Gujarat through its Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development Dept. and Recruitment Rules for the cadre of Mukhya Sevika, Class-Ill known as Mukhya Sevika [Class-III] Panchayat Service] Recruitment Rules, 2004 annexed as Annexure-A to the Affidavit in Reply. From a kind perusal thereof it would be crystal clear that the upper age limit fixed under the rules for a nomination to the cadre of Mukhya sevika, Class-III is 45 years. It is submitted that as declared by the petitioner she was of the age of 55 years at the time of filing of Special Civil Application No.10496/17. In other words she has crossed the age limit at least 14 years past ac therefore, her claim for nomination to the post of Mukhya Sevika, Class-III is not entertainable. The respnt. no.4 submits that the selection process is also laid down by the Govt. of Gujarat through its Women and Child Development Dept. through a resolution dated 13.12.05 and the same is annexed as Annexure B to the Affidavit in Reply. It is stated that the selection process for nomination is to be undertaken in accordance with the procedure laid down through G.R. dated 13.12.05. The respnt. no.4 submits that, however, the powers for selection process are with District Panchayat Service Selection Committee of the concerned District for nomination of its Anganvadi Workers to the cadre of Mukhya Sevika, Class-III. It is submitted that the G.R. dated 13.12.05 make it clear that so far as the Municipal Corporation are concerned, the services of Mukhya Sevika, Class-III are to be sought by the Municipal Corporation from District Development Officer of the concerned District on deputation. The respnt. no.4 craves leave to rely upon Clause-3 of the resolution. It is submitted that, however, when the issue cropped up about nomination of Anganvadi Worker to the post of Mukhya Sevika, Class-III there was a correspondence with respnt. no.5 and it was communicated by the Programme Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Rajkot District Panchayat that it has powers qua nomination only for the District Panchayat. The respnt. no.4 craves leave to refer to the said letter dated 29,2,16 annexed as Annexure-C to the Affidavit in Reply. It is pertinent to note that in absence of any provisions for nomination of Honorary Anganvadi Worker to the cadre of Mukhya Sevika, Class-III so far as Municipal Corporation is concerned in G.R. dated 13.12.05 issued by Govt. The respnt. no.4 craves leave to refer to the said letter dated 29,2,16 annexed as Annexure-C to the Affidavit in Reply. It is pertinent to note that in absence of any provisions for nomination of Honorary Anganvadi Worker to the cadre of Mukhya Sevika, Class-III so far as Municipal Corporation is concerned in G.R. dated 13.12.05 issued by Govt. of Gujarat through its Women and Child Development Dept. it was thought ft' by Programme Officer, 1.C.D.S., Urban, Rajkot Municipal Corporation to seek guidance of the Director, Women and Child Development Dept., Gandhinagar through a letter dated 12.5.20 and the same is again annexed as ANNEXURE-A, The respnt. no.4 submits that suitable guidance from the said authority is awaited. Under these circumstances it is most respectfully stated that the petitioner has crossed upper age limit of 45 years at least 14 years ago is not eligible for nomination to the post of Mukhya, Class-III in view of the Recruitment Rules. The respnt. no.4 most respectfully submits that the petitioner herein was born on 17.7.62 and was selected and appointed as Anganvadi Worker on 11.11.82. It is submitted that the recruitment rules known as “Mukhya Sevika Class III [Panchayat Service] Recruitment Rules, 2004” were framed through a notification dated19.3.04 and thereafter procedure for nomination to the cadre of Mukhya Sevika Class III was framed through a notification dated 13.12.05 and copies of notification dated 19.3.04 and G.R. dated 13.12.05 are annexed as ANNEXURE-B & C respectively. In other words the petitioner was of the age of more than 43 years at the time of issuance of notification dated 19.3.04 and G.R. dated 13.12.05. The respnt. no.3 submits that the procedure for nomination to the cadre of Mukhya Sevika Class III was initiated on 31.3.11 for the first time and a list of 24 eligible Honorary Anganwadi Workers was prepared and forwarded through a letter dated 31.3.11 to the Director, Women and Child Development Dept., Gandhinagar and copies of letter as well as list are annexed as ANNEXURE D & E respectively. It is humbly submitted that the name of the petitioner was not on the list as W6S She was of the age of 49 years at that point of time. The respnt no.4 humbly submits that, however, the Programme Officer, Rajkot District Panchayat, Rajkot opined through a letter dated 24.5.11 addressed to the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS. It is humbly submitted that the name of the petitioner was not on the list as W6S She was of the age of 49 years at that point of time. The respnt no.4 humbly submits that, however, the Programme Officer, Rajkot District Panchayat, Rajkot opined through a letter dated 24.5.11 addressed to the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS. Urban, Rajkot Municipal Corporation that the needful was to be done by Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board, Ahmedabad as it was not a competent authority and copy thereof is annexed as Annexure-F.” And accordingly, it appears that for the first time the procedure for nomination to the cadre of Mukya Sevika, Class-III was initiated on 31.03.2011 and accordingly, the age of the petitioners respectively was more than 48 years and therefore, their names did not reflect in the list for promotion to the post of Mukhya Sevika.” [8] The reliance placed upon by learned advocate for the petitioners on the decision of this Court in case of Smt. Manjulaben M. Ranavat Anganwadi Worker (Supra), it would be appropriate to observe that the dispute before the Court was with regards to discrepancy in the date of birth in the Government record and after considering the Government record, the Court came to the conclusion therein the date of birth to be particular and therefore, the age of the petitioners therein was below the age limit prescribed and therefore, the order was passed. The facts in the present case would difier on the facts in the case cited. [9] Learned advocate for the petitioner has cited following judgments to substantiate his case of discrimination and therefore violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (I) Patel Rajesh Motibhai v/s. State of Gujarat and others, reported in AIR 1980 Gujarat 30; (II) Ramakanta Parija v/s. Dy. Chief Mining Engineer, Sub Area Manager Belpahar, reported in 2016 (149) FLR 96 ; (III) Prasanna Dinkar Sohale and etc. v/s. The Director-in-charge Laxminarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur and others, reported in AIR 1982 Bombay 176; (IV) Dr. Penil Sharadkumar Doshi and others v/s. State, reported in AIR 1990 Madhya Pradesh 171; (V) State of Rajasthan and another v/s. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta and others, reported in AIR 1989 SC 177 .” [9.1] The Court has taken into consideration the Government Resolution which is framing the policy of promotion from the post of Anganwadi Workers to Mukya Sevika. Penil Sharadkumar Doshi and others v/s. State, reported in AIR 1990 Madhya Pradesh 171; (V) State of Rajasthan and another v/s. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta and others, reported in AIR 1989 SC 177 .” [9.1] The Court has taken into consideration the Government Resolution which is framing the policy of promotion from the post of Anganwadi Workers to Mukya Sevika. The Court does not find any discriminatory clause in the policy however, considering the argument of learned advocate for the petitioners that the Anganwadi Workers, who were working under the District Development Officer were given priority and they stole the march over the petitioners for the promotion to the post of the Mukhya Sevika, in the opinion of the Court, would be attributable to the procedure which is undertaken by two separate establishments, depending upon the exigency which existed there, but such cannot be the ground to decide that the resolution was itself discriminatory in any manner. [10] The vehement argument of the learned advocate for the petitioners that the policy was framed by the Government Resolution of 20/05/2007 and therefore, entitlement/eligibility of the petitioners from that very day cannot be accepted as the date on which the resolutions are framed, cannot be treated to be the date relevant for the purpose of deciding the entitlement of the petitioners. The relevant date to decide the entitlement would be the procedure that would be undertaken for the purpose of promotion which in the present case, is in the year 2011 for the first time and therefore, the age of the petitioners on the date on which the promotions are to be considered is relevant.” 7. The issue of non applicability of Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005 as well as the issue as regards age limit has been categorically discussed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, we do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, both the appeals being meritless, the same deserved to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Consequently, both the connected Civil Applications also stand disposed of.