The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has asserted that prescribing different minimum age requirements for the same post with identical qualifications and responsibilities, based solely on the nature of the appointment, i.e., regular vs. contractual, is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that such a classification fails the twin tests of reasonable classification, as there is no “intelligible differentia” that distinguishes candidates for regular appointment from those for contractual appointment in a way that justifies a different age requirement.
Furthermore, the differentia (the age gap) bears no “rational nexus” to the object of the recruitment, especially when the qualifications and duties are the same. Therefore, the classification is arbitrary, artificial, and evasive, leading to a violation of the fundamental right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment under Articles 14 and 16, clarified the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court declared Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, ultra vires to the Constitution, and struck it down to the extent it prescribes 21 years as a minimum eligibility age for making appointment on contractual basis on the post of A.N.M./Health Worker (Female) and runs contrary to the minimum eligibility age of 18 years prescribed in Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Medical Health and Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, for making regular appointments on the same very post.
The Court also quashed the requirement of minimum eligibility age of 21 years as provided in the second Advertisement dated July 06, 2023, read with corrigendum Advertisement dated January 12, 2024, and directed that the minimum age eligibility of the petitioner be assessed on the basis of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Medical Health and Subordinate Service Rules, 1965.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anuroop Singhi affirmed that the validity of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2022 must be tested on the “touchstone of reasonable classification” as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This requires satisfying the twin tests: (i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia, and (ii) the differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
The Bench observed that the educational qualifications in both advertisements were “identical and verbatim”, which undermined the stated object of the Rules of 2022 to hire “subject matter specialists and experts”.
Terming the State’s justification, that a higher age ensures greater maturity and experience, as wholly bereft of any rational basis, the Bench deemed it illogical for the State to require a higher maturity level for a contractual position when its own rules considered 18 years sufficient for a permanent appointment to the same post.
The Bench, therefore, concluded that in the absence of any differentiation in duties, responsibilities, or qualifications, the prescription of a higher minimum age for contractual recruitment is “grossly discriminatory, unjust, illogical and manifestly arbitrary”.
Briefly, an advertisement was issued for regular appointments under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, in the context of recruitment for the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife/Health Worker (Female). As per Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965, the minimum age for this post was 18 years, making the petitioners eligible. Later, a second advertisement was issued for contractual appointments under the Rules of 2022. This advertisement, in line with the impugned Rule 6, mandated a minimum age of 21 years. The educational qualifications for both regular and contractual posts were identical.
The petitioners, being under 21 years of age, were eligible for the regular post but became ineligible for the contractual post due to the higher age requirement. Thus, the petitioners challenged Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, which prescribed a minimum hiring age of 21 years, contending that this distinction was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Appearances:
Advocates Yashpal Khileree, Hapu Ram, Mahaveer Bhanwariya, and Jayant Mahecha, for the Petitioners
AAGs Rajesh Panwar and N.S. Rajpurohit, along with Advocates Ayush Gehlot, Aditi Sharma, and Manish Patel, for the Respondents
