1. A law or subordinate legislation is subject to judicial review under Article 14 if it is manifestly arbitrary, capricious, or lacks an adequate determining principle. The state cannot impose personal qualifications or age bars unrelated to the actual objects of the distribution of food grains.
2. The right to carry on any trade, business, or profession under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). However, a restriction based on age bar is valid only if it has a reasonable nexus with the purpose of the legislation. An arbitrary age cut-off that creates a 'class within a class' without empirical justification violates Article 14.
3. The High Court held that the 45-year age limit for new Fair Price Shop Dealers was arbitrary. There is no evidence that persons above 45 are less capable or efficient than younger persons in operating a retail shop. The distinction drawn between new applicants and those entering via compassionate appointment reveals an inconsistency in the State's policy rationale.
4. The burden is on the State to justify any restriction on fundamental rights. Where no empirical data justifies the age bar, the classification fails the test of reasonable nexus. The restriction unreasonably curtailed the petitioner's right to participate in the selection process and his right to livelihood.
5. Consequently, Sub-clause (V) of Clause 11 of the Control Order, 2024 and Clause 9(ii) of the Vacancy Notification dated December 17, 2024, were held ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution and struck down. The petitioners were directed to be permitted to participate in the selection process.
