- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the corrigendum dated 17.09.2011, whereby, a bar in terms of stipulation of age limit of 52 years has been imposed for consideration of promotion to the post of Supervisor in the Department of Women & Child Welfare, Punjab. Facts in brief would require notice. The petitioners were recruited to the posts of Anganwari Workers between the years 1975-81. Promotion from the post of Anganwari Worker is to the post of Supervisor. In terms of issuance of public notice dated 23.12.2010, applications were invited for selection and appointment to 286 posts of Supervisor from amongst the Anganwari Workers working in various Anganwari Centres running under the respondent/department. The criteria for selection on the basis of merit as per marks to be assigned on the educational qualification and experience possessed was laid down under such public notice. That apart, an upper age limit of 52 years as on 01.11.2010 was also stipulated for purpose of consideration for selection to the post of Supervisor. However, by way of a subsequent notification dated 17.01.2011, the age limit was relaxed to 58 years for the post of Supervisor and accordingly, the corrigendum was issued on 25.01.2011, whereby, the stipulation as regards age limit was increased to 58 years. The petitioners contend that they are all eligible to be considered for purposes of promotion to the post of Supervisor and accordingly, they had applied and submitted their applications for such purpose before the Competent Authority. The petitioners are presently aggrieved of a issuance of yet another corrigendum dated 17.09.2011, whereby, the earlier notification dated 17.01.2011 had been withdrawn and the age limit of 52 years has yet again been imposed for purpose of selection of Anganwari Workers working in the department to be appointed to the post of Supervisor.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the stipulation of an upper age limit of 52 years for purpose of consideration of an Anganwari Worker by way of promotion to the post of Supervisor, is contrary to the statutory service rules governing the post. Counsel has further submitted that the impugned corrigendum dated 17.09.2011 (Annexure P-13) is arbitrary and untenable in law inasmuch as no age limit could have been prescribed in the matter of promotion to a higher post in the service.;