Bombay High Court
FARIDA MUSTAK MULLA AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The 2026 Government Resolution reducing the maximum age for promotion to 50 years is unconstitutional; the permissible age remains 55 years as per the 2001 resolution and its corrigendum.
Summary
The petitioners, Anganwadi Sevikas appointed between 2006 and 2008, challenged a Government Resolution dated 3 July 2026 that reduced the maximum age for promotion to Supervisor to 50 years. Earlier, a 2001 resolution (and its 2001 corrigendum) had set the permissible age at 55 years, a position affirmed by the Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 2147 of 2023, which struck down a 2021 rule lowering the age to 45 as violative of Article 14. Relying on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Bombay High Court held that the 2026 resolution was unconstitutional and that the 55‑year ceiling remained binding. The Court quashed the 2026 resolution, directed the respondent to re‑advertise the posts with a maximum age of 55 years, and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- The constitutionality of the Government Resolution dated 3 July 2026 prescribing a maximum age of 50 years for promotion to Supervisor.
- Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation preserves the 55‑year age limit established by the 2001 resolution and its corrigendum.
- Whether the new age restriction violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14, Article 16
Subjects
- legitimate expectation
- age limit
- promotion
- Anganwadi Sevika
- Article 14
- Article 16
- discrimination
- service rules
- constitutional validity
Judgment
901-WP-4045-2026.doc
Digitally signed
by HARISH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VITHAL
HARISH
VITHAL
CHAUDHARI
Date:
CHAUDHARI 2026.08.25
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
19:36:47
+0530 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 7 th December, 2001
was issued modifying the maximum age restricted to 55 years for
Harish 1 of 7
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 7 th
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 7 th 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 17 th 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 3 rd July, 2026.
Harish 5 of 7
901-WP-4045-2026.doc
The G.R. of 3rd July, 2026 refers to interim order dated 30 th May, 2025
passed by Bombay High Court directing that age qualiication shall not
be less than 50 years and order of Nagpur Bench dated 8 th 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 8 th 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 17 th
November, 2001 and the corrigendum of 7 th 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
Checking your session…