IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.458 of 2011 IN C.W.J.C. No. 11150 of 2010 With I.A. NO. 2086 of 2011 ====================================================== Poonam Sinha, W/o Late Raman Prasad Srivastava, R/o Mohalla- Gaurakshini, P.O.-Sasaram, P.S.-Sasaram(Model), District-Rohtas. ….. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas. ….. Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== APPEARANCE: For the Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, A.C. to G.A. 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 15.03.2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 2086 of 2011: This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 16 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 458 of 2011: This appeal preferred under clause 10 of the letters patent arises from the judgment and order dated 20th July 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 11150 of 2010. 2 The appellant is an Anganbari Sevika appointed under the Integrated Child Development Project. Under Government Resolution dated 10th June 2010, 25% of posts of the Lady Supervisor are reserved for appointment from amongst the Anganbari Sevikas who answer the eligibility criteria. Under the said Resolution, maximum age limit of 45 years has been prescribed for such appointment. Admittedly, on the date of advertisement, the appellant had crossed the age of 45 years. She was therefore, not eligible for appointment as Lady Supervisor. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed above C.W.J.C. No. 11150 of 2010 to challenge the prescription of the standard of eligibility, particularly the maximum age of 45 years. The learned single Judge has rejected the challenge. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Siddharth Harsh has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that fixing the upper age limit of 45 years is arbitrary and requires to be quashed. He has submitted that for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor, an Anganbari Sevika must have obtained 10 years’ experience as Anganbari Sevika. A woman appointed as Anganbari Sevika at the age of 40 years would never become eligible for appointment as Lady Supervisor. As such, the upper age of 45 years has no nexus or rationale. The respondent authorities should have taken into consideration the maximum age at which one can be appointed as an Anganbari Sevika and required 10 years’ experience. We see no substance in the arguments of the learned Advocate Mr. Harsh. The eligibility criteria is the matter of 3 policy to be decided by the Executive. This court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution would not sit in appeal over the decision of the Executive. Merely because the appellant does not fall within the eligibility criteria, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. The writ petition is rightly rejected. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory application stands dismissed. Sujit (R.M.Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran,J.)