Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7112 (UTT)

CHITRAKALA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSB/223/2020 · 2025-07-08

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Subhash Upadhyay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:5850-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB/223/2020 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. 1. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.K. Nainwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioners are serving as Anganwadi Karyakarti in Women Empowerment Department of the State. They are aggrieved by fixation of upper age limit by Rule 5(4)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Child Development and Nutrition (Sub-Ordinate) Service Rules, 1992, as 45 years. 4. The relief sought in the writ petition are as follows:- (i) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the fixation of maximum age limit as per rule 5(4)(2) for Mukhya Sewika is arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra virus to the Constitution of India and also to declare the condition of maximum age prescribed in the advertisement dated 10.07.2020 is illegal and ultra virus, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition or to mould the relief appropriately. (ii) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature mandamus directing the respondents to accept the candidature and form of the petitioner on the promotional post of Mukhya Sewika had it been the impugned conditions of maximum age limit was never in existence and in view of removal of age limit in promotion rules 1975 and relaxation in age rules 2003 of state of Uttarakhand, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition, by tgreating the appointment of the petitioners as Aanganwari Karyakarti is under the services to the Government and thus 2025:UHC:5850-DB the same be treated as a substantive and regular for the purpose of service benefits including promotional avenues, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition or to mould the relief appropriately. 5. Learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions in the matter. Based on instructions received from Director, Women, Empowerment and Child Development Department, learned State Counsel submits that State of Uttarakhand has framed new Rules, known as, “Uttarakhand Mahila Evam Balvikas Adhinasth (Supervisor) Seva Niyamavali, 2021” and now the upper age limit for appointment of Supervisor from the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarti is 59 years. 6. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the New Rules, whereby the maximum age is fixed as 59 years, the grievance raised by petitioners is redressed and the cause of action do not survive. 7. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed, as infructuous. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.07.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.07.08 21:38:46 -07'00' 2025:UHC:5850-DB