Different Age Criteria For Contractual And Regular Appointments Unconstitutional: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has struck down Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (“2022 Rules”) as unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14 & 16, as it prescribed 21 years as eligibility criteria for contractual recruitment to a post as compared to 18 years prescribed by Rajasthan Medical Health And Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (“1965 Rules”) for regular recruitment to the same post. The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anuroop Singhi highlighted that the educational qualifications, nature of work, scope of duties and responsibilities, required for the post under contractual and regular appointment were identical, and hence, the different eligibility criteria between the two modes of appointment were not based on any intelligible differentia. “The respondents have miserably failed to meet any of the above tests and thus, under no circumstances fixing an eligibility age of 21 years for making contractual appointments by applying Rule 6 of the Rules of 2022 can be held to be valid…On the contrary, it results in hostile discrimination, rendering eligible candidates for regular appointment ineligible for contractual engagement for the same post.”The Court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by the candidates for the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife/Health Worker (Female) for which two separate recruitments processes were initiated by the State. First one was under the 1965 Rules which was regular appointments under which the minimum age criteria was 18 years. Another was under the 2022 Rules which was contractual appointment for which the minimum age criteria was 21 years. Therefore, the candidates which were eligible under the former were rendered ineligible under the latter for the same post, with identical eligibility criterial on all other fronts, except for age. Hence, the petitions were filed challenging Rule 6 of the 2022 Rules on the ground of it being violative of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. It was argued that for the same post, with identical educational qualification and nature & scope of duties, the State could not prescribe two separate minimum age requirements merely based on mode of appointment. After hearing the contentions, the Court tested Rule 6 on the touchstone of the test of reasonable classification developed for Article 14, incorporating the stages of intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object. It was held that since the appointments were made on same post with same educational qualification for performing similar nature of work, enhanced age criteria for contractual employment was manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and Article 16. “There exists no intelligible differentia which distinguishes the candidates who are grouped together by applying Rules of 1965 from those who have been grouped separately by applying Rules of 2022 so as to prescribe a different minimum age eligibility. It goes without saying that mere classification itself is not enough, for the simple reason that anything can be classified and every discriminatory action must of necessity fall in some category of classification. Therefore, classification has to be demonstrably based upon substantive differences and should achieve relevant objects that have constitutional validity.”The Court opined that the mere fact of 2022 Rules dealing with contractual hiring could not create a classification to prescribe a different minimum eligibility age that what was prescribed under the 1965 Rules as such classification lacked intelligible differentia. Furthermore, the Court observed that since the required educational qualification under both the modes of appointment was identical and verbatim, the argument of hiring any specialist or expert under contractual recruitment, failed to reflect a rational nexus between the classification and the objective sought to be achieved. In this light, Rule 6 of the 2022 Rules was struck down to the extent it prescribed 21 as the minimum eligibility criteria for contractual appointment to the post. It was held that the Rule had to be read at par with the minimum age criteria of 18 years as prescribed by the 1965 Rules. Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of. Title: Shobha v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitionsCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 13Click Here To Read/Download Order

Different Age Criteria For Contractual And Regular Appointments Unconstitutional: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Aggarwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Different Age Criteria For Contractual And Regular Appointments Unconstitutional: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Aggarwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers