profession, and that, neither there was any relationship of master and servant between him/ her and the Government of India nor there did exist any contractual relationship between the two, and that thus, ordinarily there would be no good reason for the State to completely prohibit, at its choice, the pursuit of a private profession or self employment, on attaining a certain age. Responding to a similar plea of the respondents therein, that the job of a guide requires a lot of physical stamina to undertake the same, in course whereof, he/ she would have to climb steps and walk long distances in the monuments etc., for which, the upper age limit of 60 years was a valid prescription, their Lordships observed that as the occupation of a guide was an independent profession, and young and old guides are available, it would be for the visitors to choose, whom to engage, and at times, a more matured and elder guide could be more informative and make the tour more interesting. Their Lordships commented that in a private profession of a guide, it would be better left to the consumer of the service to make his own choice, more particularly, as the visitors come to see the places of interest, not because of the energetic guides, but due to importance of a monument, its beauty, historical background or things of that kind. Their Lordships propounded that regulatory measures may be for better efficiency, conduct and behaviour in public interest, but ordinarily, the same cannot prohibit a person totally debarring him from carrying on his profession at an age chosen by the Government, unless there are special reasons for it. Referring to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India,
