Calcutta High Court observed that the restriction is arbitrary, discriminatory and creates an artificial classification intelligible differentia. (Image generated using AI)The Calcutta High Court recently struck down the upper age limit of 45 years for applicants seeking Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealership in the state, observing that the restriction is arbitrary, discriminatory and creates an artificial classification intelligible differentia.Justice Smita Das De noted that the state cannot restrict entry into a trade on the basis of age unless age directly affects the performance of the trade.“There is no evidence that a person over and above 45 years of age is less capable of running a shop than a person within the permissible age limit, rendering the age cut off “arbitrary”. The state cannot restrict entry into a trade on the basis of age unless age directly affects the performance of the trade,” the court said.The court passed the order while dealing with pleas challenging a state notification whereby an upper age limit of 45 years was set in order to be eligible to apply for grant of fair price shop licence.‘Creates two classes of citizens’The court emphasised that the state had failed to provide any empirical data or reasonable justification to show that individuals above 45 years were less capable of operating FPS outlets.“The state has failed to furnish empirical data showing that a person aged 46 to 60 years are significantly less efficient in operating a retail shop. In absence of a rational basis, the age limit of 45 years is deemed to be an impermissible whim under the Constitution,” it noted.The court observed that by imposing an age gap that restricts the pool of eligible distributors without a functional reason, the state exceeded the rule making power granted to it by the parliament.Story continues below this adThe court also found that the impugned provision created two classes of citizens, those below 45 years and those above, without any reasonable basis and held that the executive authority had exceeded its power.“The executive authority has exceeded its power by imposing an age restriction not contemplated in the Parent Act, thereby imposing an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner’s right to practice his profession or trade. The sudden change in age criteria adversely affects those who had a reasonable expectation, and the age limit creates two classes of citizen (those under 45 and those above 45) without any reasonable classification,” the court said.Holding the provision to be “manifestly arbitrary,” the court ruled that it failed the test of equality under Article 14 and imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g).“The impugned clause is manifestly arbitrary and lacks rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The doctrine of Arbitrariness, makes it clear that any provision which is capricious or irrational is liable to be struck down. Moreover, the impugned restriction unreasonably curtails the petitioner’s right to practice a profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India,” the court noted.Story continues below this adIt further remarked that without any reasonable justification the classification becomes arbitrary and violative of the right to equality.Also Read | Can a reasonable job expectation override guidelines? Orissa High Court rules on age limit of 32 for ‘Sikshya Sahayak’ postsPetitioners allowed to participateThe court set aside clause 11(v) of the West Bengal targeted public distribution system (maintenance and control) order, 2024, as well as the corresponding provision in the vacancy notification dated December 17, 2024 whereby the restriction was imposed.The court directed the state to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection process of the fair price shop dealership.BackgroundThe petitioner participated in the selection process of the fair price shop dealer on the terms and conditions of the vacancy notice dated December 17, 2024.At the time of participation the petitioner realised that a new criteria was incorporated, following the new control order, 2024 which provided that the age of the applicants must not be more than 45 years on the date of application.Feeling aggrieved by this restriction, the petitioner had approached the high court.Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents. Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes: Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdTags:Calcutta High Court