The Bombay High Court has quashed a Government Resolution reducing the maximum permissible age for promotion of Anganwadi Sevikas to Supervisor from 55 years to 50 years. The Court held that legitimate expectation arose from the Government Resolution dated 17 November 2001 and corrigendum dated 7 December 2001, under which Anganwadi Sevikas up to 55 years were eligible for promotion.

A Division Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Justice Neeraj P. Dhote was hearing a petition challenging the Government Resolution dated 3 July 2026 prescribing 50 years as the maximum age for appointment as Supervisor.

The State Government had earlier formulated Service Entry Rules, Rule 7(1)(c) of which reduced the maximum age for promotion from 55 years to 45 years. The same was challenged before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Court declared the rule unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, on the ground that the Government Resolutions of 17 November 2001 and 7 December 2001 had created a legitimate expectation among Anganwadi Sevikas to be considered for promotion up to the age of 55 years. A Government Resolution dated 3 July 2026 again reduced the maximum permissible age to 50 years.

The State submitted that the purpose of prescribing the maximum age of 50 years was to ensure that the maximum benefit was available to persons appointed as Supervisors. It also pointed out that the retirement age was 65 years for Anganwadi Sevikas and 58 years for Supervisors.

The Court noted that the earlier Division Bench decision had already held Rule 7(1)(c) of the Service Entry Rules unconstitutional and that there was no material to show that the decision had been challenged. Consequently, the Government Resolutions of 17 November 2001 and 7 December 2001 continued to govern the field.

The Court held that, in view of the earlier decision, the doctrine of legitimate expectation also arose in the present case. It observed:

“… even in this case, the doctrine of legitimate expectation would arise in view of the rights which created by the Government Resolution dated 17th November, 2001 read with the corrigendum dated 7th December, 2001. The petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of seeking promotion to the post of Supervisor by way of introducing a fresh Government Circular dated 3rd July, 2026.”

The Court held that there was no justification for fixing the maximum permissible age at 50 years, as it was discriminatory, would deprive Anganwadi Sevikas of promotional benefits, and result in juniors superseding seniors.

Accordingly, applying the same criteria as was applied by the Nagpur Bench in its decision dated 8 May 2026, the Court quashed and set aside the Government Resolution dated 3 July 2026. It held that Anganwadi Sevikas desirous of applying for the post of Supervisor would be governed by the Government Resolution dated 17 November 2001 and corrigendum dated 7 December 2001, with the maximum permissible age for promotional appointment being 55 years.

The Court directed respondent no.2 to issue a fresh advertisement inviting applications for the post of Supervisor with the maximum permissible age of 55 years and the other qualifying criteria.

Case Title: Farida Mustak Mulla v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 4045 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order