901-WP-4045-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4045 OF 2026 Farida Mustak Mulla And Others ...Petitioners. Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Women And Child Development Dept. And Others ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Viraj Vikramsinh Nalawade a/w Sahil Shaikh , Sharvari Tipugade, Girish Mujumdar & Tanvi Lad for the Petitioners. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : August 21, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present petition, the challenge is to the Government Resolution dated 3rd July, 2026, prescribing that the maximum age for appointment as Supervisor shall be 50 years. 2. The petitioners are Anganwadi Sevikas who have been appointed in or around the years 2006 to 2008. The State Government vide Government Resolution dated 17th November, 2001 prescribed the maximum permissible age to be 45 years for promotion of Anganwadi Sevikas to Supervisors. A further corrigendum dated 7th December, 2001 was issued modifying the maximum age restricted to 55 years for Harish 1 of 7 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date: 2026.08.25 19:36:47 +0530 901-WP-4045-2026.doc promotion. 3. The Government of Maharashtra formulated Service Entry Rules by notiication dated 4th June, 2021, and Rule 7(1)(c) reduced the maximum age for promotion from 55 years to 45 years. This rule came to be challenged before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, Nagpur Bench, by way of Writ Petition No. 2147 of 2023, which declared Rule 7(1)(c) of the Service Entry Rules, 2021 as unconstitutional and speciically held that the legitimate expectation of Anganwadi Sevikas to be considered for promotion arose from the Government Resolution dated 17th November, 2001 and the Corrigendum dated 7th December, 2001. The Hon’ble Court observed that if the 45-year restriction was permitted to operate, younger and less experienced Anganwadi Sevika would become Supervisor while seniors would stagnate in service being age barred. It held that the age restriction violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Subsequently, a fresh age restriction is imposed by the Government Resolution dated 3rd July, 2026, prescribing the maximum permissible age to be 50 years as on the date of the advertisement. By Government Resolution of 5th August, 2026, the fresh recruitment process with the new eligibility conditions came to be initiated and an advertisement was issued for illing up 272 posts with the maximum permissible age limit of 50 years as of 1st January, 2025. Harish 2 of 7 901-WP-4045-2026.doc 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that once the Service Entry Rules were held to be unconstitutional, and it was held that the legitimate expectation of Anganwadi Sevikas had arisen from the Government Resolution of 17th November, 2001 where the maximum permissible age was modiied to 55 years, by way of a subsequent Government Resolution, the age restriction could thereafter not be modiied to 50 years. He has taken this court in detail through the judgment dated 8th May, 2026 passed by the Nagpur Bench and would submit that the present petitioners are identically placed and in similar facts where the Nagpur Bench has held that the Government Resolution of 17th November, 2001 read with corrigendum dated 7th December, 2001 gave rise to legitimate expectation, the maximum permissible age should be permitted to revert to 55 years as per the decision of the Nagpur Bench. 6. Learned AGP, on instructions, submits that the whole purpose of introducing the maximum permissible age of 50 years in order to ensure that maximum beneit is available to persons appointed to the post of Supervisor. She would submit that the age of retirement for Anganwadi Sevikas is 65 years, whereas that of a Supervisor is 58 years, and it would be more beneicial for the Anganwadi Sevikas to continue in the said posts. 7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Harish 3 of 7 901-WP-4045-2026.doc a conscious decision has been taken by the petitioners to apply for the post of Supervisor, and the prescribed age of retirement of the Supervisor is acceptable to them. 8. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 9. In Writ Petition No. 2147 of 2023, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, Nagpur Bench, was seized of a challenge to Rule 7(1)(c) of the Service Entry Rules, which reduced the maximum age for promotion from 55 years to 45 years at the time when the Government Resolution of 17th November, 2001 read with corrigendum dated 7th December, 2001 provided for the maximum permissible age to be 55 years. The Hon’ble Division Bench noted the very contention raised by the learned AGP as regards the retirement ages of Anganwadi Sevikas and Supervisors respectively. It also considered the Government Resolution dated 17th November, 2001 and the Corrigendum of 7th December, 2001, by which candidates up to the age of 55 years were held eligible for the post of Supervisor by way of promotion. The Hon’ble Division Bench noted the contentions of the petitioners therein that they became duly qualiied for the post of Supervisor in accordance with their date of appointment; however, no appointments were made in accordance with the Government Resolutions, and therefore they were deprived of their legitimate expectation of being promoted in view of the right created by the Government Resolution dated 17th November, 2001 read with Harish 4 of 7 901-WP-4045-2026.doc corrigendum dated 7th December, 2001. 10. The Hon’ble Division Bench, after considering judicial pronouncements in the context of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, held the impugned Rule 7(1)(c) as unconstitutional. Resultantly, as per the Government Resolution dated 17th November, 2001 read with the Corrigendum of 7th December, 2001, the maximum permissible age for such promotional appointment remained static at 55 years. There is no material on record to demonstrate that there is any challenge to the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench. Resultantly, the Government Resolution dated 17th November, 2001 read with corrigendum of 7th December, 2001 will govern the ield. By the Government Resolution of 3rd July, 2026, an identical exercise is now sought to be carried out by the government, akin to the introduction of Rule 7(1)(c) of the Service Entry Rules, by which the maximum age is now sought to be reduced to 50 years. 11. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 2147 of 2023, 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 beneit of seeking promotion to the post of Supervisor by way of introducing a fresh Government Circular dated 3rd July, 2026. Harish 5 of 7 901-WP-4045-2026.doc The G.R. of 3rd July, 2026 refers to interim order dated 30th May, 2025 passed by Bombay High Court directing that age qualiication shall not be less than 50 years and order of Nagpur Bench dated 8th May, 2026 cancelling maximum permissible age of 45 years and ixed maximum permissible age at 50 years. There is no justiication for ixing the maximum permissible age at 50 years, which will deprive the Anganwadi Sevikas of the promotional beneits, which is discriminatory. As held by the Hon’ble Nagpur Bench, the consequence would be that juniors will supersede the seniors. 12. In light of the decision of Hon’ble Nagpur Bench dated 8th May, 2026, the same criteria would apply to consider the validity of G.R dated 3rd July, 2026, which carries out the same exercise. Resultantly, the G.R dated 3rd July, 2026 is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the Anganwadi Sevikas who are desirous of applying to the post of Supervisor will be governed by the Government Resolution of 17th November, 2001 and the corrigendum of 7th December, 2001 and the maximum permissible age for such promotional appointment would be as per the said Government Resolution at 55 years. 13. Needless to clarify that the petitioners and all other candidates except for the maximum age restriction, which will be as per the Government Resolution of 17th November, 2001 and the corrigendum of 7th December, 2001 will have to fulill the other eligibility criteria. Harish 6 of 7 901-WP-4045-2026.doc 14. Considering the present decision, the respondent No. 2 is directed to issue a fresh advertisement inviting applications for the post of Supervisor with the maximum permissible age of 55 years and other qualifying criteria. 15. Writ petition is allowed in the above terms. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Harish 7 of 7