2026:UHC:3442 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 1 1 8 0 / 2 0 2 6 W it h W PSS/ 1 1 5 4 / 2 0 2 6 W PSS/ 1 1 7 9 / 2 0 2 6 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.N. Joshsi, Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Gaurav Nagpal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent. 1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of Writ Petition (SS) No. 1180 of 2026, alone are being considered and discussed. 2. Petitioner possesses Diploma in Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife/Health Worker (female) from State Medical Faculty, Uttar Pradesh, which makes them eligible for appointment as Health Worker (Female) in Department of Medical and Health. The maximum age limit prescribed for appointment as Health Worker (Female) for general category candidates is 42 years as per Rule 10 of the applicable rules. 3. In the year 2024, 391 vacancies on the post of Health Worker (Female) were advertised by Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board, and it was provided that anyone who is between age group of 18 to 42 years, as on 01.07.2023, would be eligible to apply. 4. Since petitioners had crossed upper age limit, i.e. 42 years on 01.07.2023, therefore they approached this 2026:UHC:3442 Court by filing separate writ petitions in which interim orders were passed pursuant to which petitioners participated in the selection process. 5. The writ petitions filed by petitioners, however, were disposed of by permitting petitioners to make representation to the Secretary, Medical Health and the concerned Secretary was directed to take decision on the representation submitted by petitioners regarding age relaxation. 6. The Secretary, Medical Health rejected the representation submitted by petitioners by means of separate orders passed on 09.01.2026, which are under challenge in these writ petitions. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that provision contained in Rule 3 of Uttarakhand Public Services (Relaxation in Upper Age Limit for Recruitment) Rules, 2003 was not considered by the concerned Secretary in the rejection order. 8. English translation of Rule 3 of Rule 2003, supplied by learned State Counsel is as under: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rule regulating the maximum age of recruitment to a service or post in connection with the affairs of the State, relaxation in the maximum age limit may be granted by the Government in favour of a candidate or class or class of candidates. Provided that in the case in which recruitment is made through the Commission, that body shall be consulted before the relaxation is granted.” 9. The order passed by Secretary, impugned herein is enclosed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. Perusal 2026:UHC:3442 thereof reveals that concerned Secretary has considered the provision contained in applicable service rules, which provide 42 years as the upper age limit for general category candidates. 10. The amendment made vide notification dated 25.02.2014 in Uttarakhand Public Services (Age Limit) Rules has also been considered, whereby it was provided that maximum age for appointment to a public post shall be 42 years in place of 40 years. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Secretary erred in not considering the provision contained in Uttarakhand Public Services (Relaxation in Upper Age Limit for Recruitment) Rules, 2003. 12. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that relaxation in upper age limit cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it lies in the sole discretion of the employer and here the employer has decided against grant of relaxation to persons who crossed the upper age limit, therefore, the challenge to the rejection order passed by Secretary is without any substance. 13. He relies on a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shanti Devi, reported as 2022 INSC 1315. Para 15 of the said judgment is reproduced below: “15. In the present case, the State uniformly applied the prescribed age limit of 50 years to all applicants considered under Rule 5(4)(ii) read with Rule 15B of the UP Service Rules of 1992. On the direction of the Single Judge of the High Court on 11 April 2018, the State applied its mind and considered the representation for the grant of an age relaxation to the respondent twice - on 3 October 2018 and on 13 November 2018. In exercise of its discretionary power, the appellant decided that the respondent was not eligible to be granted the benefit of an age relaxation. No individual candidate can claim a vested right to 2026:UHC:3442 age relaxation which lies in the discretion of the appointing authority. The respondent cannot claim age relaxation under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limits for Recruitment) Rules 1992 as a matter of right. Eligibility criteria should be uniform and there cannot be scope of arbitrary selections. A candidate cannot have a vested right to claim an exemption from a uniformly applicable criterion. A selective grant of an age relaxation will cause serious prejudice in the process of selection and render the process arbitrary.” 14. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. 15. A candidate does not have a vested right to claim an exemption from uniformly applicable criteria regarding age and selective grant of age relaxation will cause serious prejudice to the process of selection and render the process arbitrary, as articulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. Even otherwise also, Rule 3 of 2003 Rules enables the State Government to relax the condition regarding upper age limit in appropriate cases; however, it does not create a right in favour of a candidate who has crossed maximum age and such relaxation is solely within the discretion of the employer. 17. Thus, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the rejection order passed by the Secretary. 18. Writ petitions fail and are dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 06.05.2026 Mahinder/