Aniruddha Bose, J.:— In this writ petition, in substance the validity of Sub-Clause (2) of Rule 6 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 is under challenge. Clause 6 of the Rules stipulates:
“6. Tenure of the Board. -(1) The Board shall have a tenure of three years and the appointment of members shall be co-terminus with the tenure of the Board.
(2) A social worker being a member of the Board shall be eligible for appointment for a maximum of two consecutive terms.
(3) Any extension of the tenure of members of the Board shall be on the basis of their performance appraisal by the District Child Protection Unit of the State Government and on the recommendation of a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose and the performance appraisal of members of the Board shall necessarily assess their participation in the proceedings of the Board and contribution in case disposal.
(4) A member may resign any time, by giving one month's advance notice in writing or may be removed from his office as provided in sub-section
(5) of section 4 of the Act.
(5) Any vacancy in the Board may be filled by appointment of another person from the panel of names prepared by the Selection Committee, and shall hold office for the remaining term of the Board.”
Such Rules have been framed in terms of Section 68 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
The petitioner before me is an Association of the members of the Juvenile Justice Board. The Association is aggrieved over the restriction placed under Sub-Clause (2) of Rule 6 of the said Rules over eligibility of appointment of a social worker beyond two consecutive terms. Submission of Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the said Rule failed to take into account the experience of the members while placing restriction on their appointment and such restriction would constitute violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the matter of laying down the eligibility criteria, the framers of the Rule empowered by the statute are the best equipped. The petitioner in any event cannot claim to have any legal right for its members for continued appointments in the Board. The said Rule does not appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
In the circumstances, I do not think the petitioner has made out any case or cause of action to maintain this writ petition. The writ petition shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.