1 2025:CGHC:46660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7424 of 2023 1 - Sukhi Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Ram Sahu, Aged About 65 Years R/o D.N.K. Tahsil Para, Lane In Front Of Airtel Tower, Behind P.W.D. Officer, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon 494226 Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Women And Child Development Department Indrawati Bhawan, Block 01, 2nd Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur - 492002, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Program Officer, Women And Child Development Department, Office Of Collectorate, (District Child Protection Unit, District Kondagaon) Kondagoan, District Kondagaon - 494226 Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddhant Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyaya, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 11.09.2025 2 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2023, by which he has been removed from the post of Member of the Juvenile Welfare Board, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on 21.07.2023, and had served only for about two months before being removed from service. It is contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. However, learned counsel does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has already attained the age of 65 years. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that as per the Circular dated 08.08.2023, the maximum age limit for appointment as a Member of the Juvenile Welfare Board is 65 years. Since the petitioner had already attained 65 years of age, his appointment was rightly cancelled vide Memo dated 04.09.2023. The action is in accordance with the applicable rules and does not suffer from any illegality. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Upon consideration of the Circular dated 08.08.2023 and the letter dated 04.09.2023, it is evident that upon completion of 65 years of age, a member may be removed from the post, notwithstanding any remaining tenure of service. The petitioner’s appointment was cancelled vide memo dated 04.09.2023, clearly indicating that completion of the maximum permissible age of 65 years renders the individual ineligible to continue in service. 3 6. In view of the above, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or procedural irregularity warranting interference by this Court. The action of the respondent authorities is in conformity with the applicable circulars and the law. 7. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/--d/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha