MINATI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the State relied on the decision in Yogesh Yadav v. Union of India (2013) 14 SCC 623 to urge that since the minimum age limit of 18 years for the Post of Anganwadi Worker (AWW) for the selection in question was not stipulated in the advertisement itself, the subsequent introduction of the minimum age limit of 21 years, even after the process of selection had commenced, would not be arbitrary.

(2.) The Court finds that the decision cited does not deal with the issue of fixation of age limit at all. It was, on the other hand, in the context of there being no minimum marks fixed to begin with when the selection process started; therefore, the introduction of a cut-off after the selection process was underway was held not to amount to changing the rules of the game after the game had commenced. The facts here are different and therefore the said decision is of no assistance to the State.

(3.) It is then contended by learned counsel appearing for the State that since the Post of AWW is not a civil post the rigours of Article 14 would not apply. Reference is made to the decision in State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi (2007) 11 SCC 681. While the said principle is unexceptionable, in the present case, the State has not put forth a reasonable justification for changing the minimum age criteria after the selection process had begun, particularly, since the changed criteria ended up disqualifying the Appellant who was otherwise qualified to apply for the post of AWW. Consequently, this plea is also rejected by the Court.