in the gauhati high courtghconline.gov.in/judgment/wpc8452014.pdfwp(c) nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178,...
TRANSCRIPT
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 1 of 48
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) NO. 845 Of 2014
Petitioners :
1. Pranab Kumar Deka, S/o Achyutananda Deka, Milan Path,
Ambikagiri Nagar, Zoo Road, Guwahati-24.
2. Sushil Chandra Deka, S/o Lt. Bhuban Chandra Deka,
R/o Birubari, P.O. Gopinath Nagar, P.S. Paltan Bazar, Guwahati.
3. Nazrual Islam, S/o Lt. Taser Uddin,
Vill & P.O Joruachar, P.S. Fakiranj, Dhubri.
4. Girindra Ch. Kalita, S/o Lt. Mahendra Kalita, Vill- Japorigog, P.O. Japorigog, Dist. Kamrup, Assam.
5. Champak Sarma, S/o Lt. Bongshidhar Sarma,
Vill- Raipur, P.O. Pathsala, Barpeta, Assam.
6. Paresh Bhagabati, Vill & P.O. Kakaya, P.S.Belsor, Dist. Nalbari, Assam.
7. Pradip Kr. Dev Sarma, S/o Bhubaneswar Sarma, Santipur, Ward No. 7, Madhav Dev Path, P.O. & Dist. Nalbari,
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 2 of 48
Assam, PIN- 781304.
8. Tridip Kr. Bhattacharyya, S/o Lt. Promod Ch. Bhattaharyya, R/o Lane No. 6, Bidyapur, Nalbari.
9. Dr. Kushal Baruah, K.B. Ward No. 11, North Lakhimpur, Pin- 787001, Assam.
10. Dhruba Choudhury, S/o Lt. Tarun Chandra Choudhury, Vill- Kaharpara, P.O Nityananda, P.S. Patacharkuchi, Dist. Barpeta, Assam.
11. Amal Kalita, S/o Lt. Umesh Chandra Kalita, Vill & P.O. Baghmara, Dist. Barpeta, Assam. 12. Khanindra Kalita, Vill & P.O. Tarani, P.S. Rangia, Dist. Kamrup, Assam.
13. Dr. Deepak Sarma, Vill- Out Agency, P.O. Biswanath Chariali, Dist. Sonitpur, Assam, Pin- 784176.
14. Saurabh Hazarika, Vill- Nagayan Barua Chuk, P.O. Sootea, Dist. Sonitpur, Assam, PIN- 784175.
15. Bijit Deb Choudhury,
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 3 of 48
House No. 49, Rukmini Nagar Main Road, Rukmini Nagar, Dispur, Guwahati- 781006. 16. Rafiqul Islam, S/o Lt. Abdul Islam, Vill- Bherbheri, P.O. Dhupaguri, P.S. Batadrava, Dist. Nagaon, Assam.
17. Dr. Mustafa Ahmed, S/o Lt. Prof. Shamsuddin, Bhuyan Patty, South Haiborgaon, P.O. & P.S. Haiborgaon, Dist. Nagaon, Assam.
18. Dr. Anjanjyoti Baruah, S/O Sri Chidananda Baruah, Vill- Dekasundar, P.O. Jamugurighat, P.S. Jamuguri, PIN- 784180, Dist. Sonitpur, Assam.
19. Dr. Manish Baruah, S/o Sita Sashi Prava Baruah, Usha Nagar, P.O. Tezpur, Dist. Sonitpur, Assam.
20. Dr. Nuruzzaman, S/o Rahim Uddin, Vill- Goria Bari Pathar, P.O. Hahehara Gaon, P.S. Moirabari, Dist. Morigaon, Assam.
21. Dr. Diluar Hussain, S/o Lt. Habib Ullah, Vill-Dhingarati, P.O. & P.S. Laharighat,
.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 4 of 48
Dist. Morigaon, Assam.
22. Dr. Alok Ranjan Sharma, C/o Sri Pulak Ranjan Sharma,
Vill- Kenduguri No. 2, Bharmingaon,
P.O. Chengaligaon, Dist. Jorhat, Assam.
23. Dr. Ahmed Hussain, Hasilapara Road, Ward No. 11, Pancharatna Road, P.O. & P.S. Goalpara, Goalpara, Assam.
24. Dr. Tiken Chandra Saikia, S/o Sri Kumud Ch. Saikia, Vill- Titatala, P.O. Barangani, PIN- 782127, P.S. Laharighat, Dist. Morigaon, Assam.
25. Dr. Haren Chandra Deka, Deka Kutir, House No. 3, Gadapani Path (Forest Gate), Hengrabari,Guwahati-781006.
26. Dr. Nazrin Sultana, W/o Salim Sattar, Palm Groove Enclave, Flat No. 209, Juripar, P.O. Panjabari, Guwahati- 781037.
27. Dr. Manorama Mandal, W/O Dr. Manindra Nath Roy, Deptt. of Extension Education, College of Veterinary Science, Khanapara, AAU, P.O.Khanapara, Dist. Kamrup, PIN- 781022.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 5 of 48
28. Dr. Bhaba Jyoti Baruah, S/o Lt. Loknath Baruah, Vill- Huz Kahua Toli,
P.S. Sadar, Dist. Nagaon, Assam.
29. Kamal Kumar Sarma, S/o Lt. Nalini Kumar Sarma, Bohagi Path, Hatigaon, Guwahati-38.
30. Bhupen Ch. Borah, S/o Sri Phanindra Borah, Baghor Bori, Sinaki Path, House No. 115, Chandika Nagar, Near Kali Mandir, Guwahati-37. 31. Girindra Mishra, No. 2 Mathgharia, Noonmati, Guwahati-20, Dist-Kamrup, Assam.
32. Jnandeep Hazarika, S/o Sri Jogen Hazarika, R/o Sankar Nagar, Lakhimi Path, P.O. Beltola, P.S. Basistha, Dist. Kamrup (M), Assam.
33. Trishna Bhandar Kayastha, W/o Sri Sanjib Dutta, R/o Chandan Nagar, Rukimini Gaon, P.O & P.S. Dispur, Dist. Kamrup, Assam.
34. Dr. Hareswar Borah, S/o Lt. Mahendra Nath Borah,
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 6 of 48
P.O. Gotanagar, Opposite Tetelia High School, Guwahati- 781033.
35. Dr. Rintu Moni Bora, S/o Jona Ram Bora, Vill No. 2 Deurigaon, P.O. Deurigaon (via Baligaon), Dist. Nagaon, Assam.
36. Dr. Rubal Ch. Roy, S/o Lt. Mukul Ch. Roy, P.O. Hakama Bilasipara, Ward No. 8, P.S. Bilasipara, Dist Dhubri, Assam.
37. Dr. Ranen Kumar Goswami, S/o Mahikanta Goswami, P.O. Chowk Bazar, Dist. Nalbari, PIN- 781335.
By Advocates: Mr. D. Das, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A. K. Sarma, Advocate,
Mr. H. J. Tamuli, Advocate, Ms. P. Borthakur, Advocate.
Respondents 1. State of Assam,
Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. 2. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Personnel (B), Assam Secretariat, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 7 of 48
3. Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
4. Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 5. Assam Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Khanapara, Guwahati-781032. 6. Secretary, Assam Public Service Commission, Khanapara, Guwahati-781032.
7. Denish Gogoi, S/o. Uttam Gogoi, Village - Mainapara, P.O. & P.S. - Ghilamara, Lakhimpur, Assam, Pin - 787053.
8. Deepak Kumar Goswami, S/o. Jai Narayan Goswami, M/S. J.N. Traders, Chowk Bazar, P.O. - Golaghat, District - Golaghat, Pin - 785621.
9. Mustafizur Rahman, S/o. Mozibar Rahman, Village -Chalbanda, P.O. - Boalkamuri, P.S. - Bilasipara, District - Dhubri, Assam, Pin - 783348.
10. Md. Samsul Alam, S/o. Late Abed Ali Ahmed,
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 8 of 48
Village - Pamdongra, P.O. - Habidongra, P.S - Baghber, District - Barpeta, Assam, Pin - 781308.
11.Rupam Bhattacharjya, S/o. Late Abani Kumar Bhattacharjya, Vill. - Barkura, P.O. - Balikaria, P.S. - Nalbari, District - Nalbari, Assam, Pin - 781335.
12.Pinku Borah, S/o. Khirud Chandra Bora, Village - 1 No. Duliajan Gaon, Bapuji Path, P.O. - Anandapara, P.S. - Duliajan, District - Dibrugarh, Assam, Pin - 786602.
13.Chandralekha Das, D/o. Anil Chandra Das, House No. - 112, Padum Path, Saurabh Nagar, Beltola Tiniali, P.O. - Beltola, P.S. - Basistha, District - Kamrup(M), Assam, Pin - 781028.
14.Madhusmitta Dutta, C/o. Mr. Jnandeep Bora, House No. - 04, Bylane - 2, Chandannagar, Sixmile, P.O. - Khanapara, P.S. - Dispur, Kamrup(M), 781022.
15.Yesmina Ahmed, D/o. Tabibur Rahman, House No. - 117, P.O. - Silpukhuri, P.S - Chandmari, District - Kamrup, Assam, Pin - 781003.
16. Prince Boro, S/o. Mahendra Nath Boro, Vill. - Dorika Kinar Nawjan Gaon, P.O. -
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 9 of 48
Namtial pathar, P.S. - Sivasagar, District - Sivasagar, Pin - 785640.
17.Sasanka Borah, S/o. Purna Kanta Bora, Village - Nanoi Suter Gaon, P.O. - Nanoi, P.S. - Nanoi, District - Nagaon, Assam, Pin - 782101.
18.Binoy Kr. Sarma, S/o. Lankeswar Misra, Achala Bhuyan Road, By Lane - 3, House No. 9, Gandhibasti, P.S. - Chandmari, P.O. - Silpukhuri, Kamrup(M), Assam.
19.Debanita Saikia, D/o. Late Debananda Saikia, House No. 25, Arya Path 2, Aryanagar, P.O. - Gopinath Nagar, P.S. - Paltanbazar, Pin - 781016.
20.David Bordoloi, S/o. Atul Bordoloi, Village - Kaki No. 1, P.O. & P.S. - Kaki, Nagaon, Assam, Pin - 782446.
21.Karuna Dutta, S/o. Late Kuleswar Dutta, Village - Seujpur, P.O. & P.S. - Moranhat, District - Sibsagar, Assam, Pin - 785670.
22.Abdur Rahim, S/o. Abdul Gafur, Vill. & P.O. - Goromari, P.S. - Laharighat, District - Morigaon, Assam, Pin - 782104.
23.Arindom Garg,
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 10 of 48
S/o. Manik Chandra Bhattacharjaa, NNB Road, Amolapatty, P.O. - Nagaon Sadar, P.S. - Itachali, Nagaon, Assam, 782001.
24.Mahiuddin Ahmed, S/o. Riaz Uddin Ahmed, Vill. - Mirza, P.O. - Mirza, P.S. - Palashbari, Assam, 781125.
25.Chitralekha Das, D/o. Late Anil Chandra Das, House No. - 4, Ganeshguri, P.O. & P.S. - Dispur, Kamrup(M), Pin - 781005.
26.Joy Prakash Sarma, S/o. Sarbeswar Sarma, Village - Barathiabari, P.O. - Dighirpar, P.S. - Sipajhar, District - Darrang, Assam, Pin - 784144.
By Advocates: Mr. B. J. Talukdar, Govt. Advocate, Mr. H. K. Mahanta, SC, Personnel Department,
Mr. C. Barua, SC, APSC, Mr. N. Dutta, Sr. Advocate, Ms. K. Dutta, Advocate.
WP(C) No. 2138 of 2014
Petitioners :
1. Dr. Gagan Kalita, S/o Lt. Madhab Ch. Kalita, R/o Srikrishna Path, Japorigog Krishna Nagar, Guwahati-781005.
2. Dr. Nabajyoti Baruah, S/o Kamini Baruah, C/o Mohan Singh, near Khanapara State Bank,
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 11 of 48
Guwahati-781022, Dist-Kamrup(M), Assam.
3. Dr. Rupak Nath, S/o Lt. Tilendra Kumar Nath, R/o R.R. Road, South Haiborgaon, P.O. Haiborgaon, Dist-Nagaon, Assam.
4. Dr. Ujjal Kakati, S/o Lt. Prem Nath Kakati, R/o Vill- & P.O. Muguria via Pathsala, Dist-Barpeta, Assam.
5. Dr. Smriti Rani Gogoi, S/o Baluram Gogoi, R/o Kanaklata Path, Survey, Guwahati, Dist-Kamrup(M), Assam.
6. Dr. Babul Sharma, S/o Lt. Debadatta Sharma, R/o Amulapatty, K. N. Road, P.O.-Nagaon, P. S. Sadar, Dist-Nagaon, Assam.
7. Dr. Kabin Ch. Nath, S/o Sombor Nath,
R/o Charaibahi, Chandrapur, P.O.-Charaibahi, P.S. Mikirbheta, Dist-Morigaon, Assam.
By Advocates: Mr. R. Sarma, Advocate,
Mr. K. Sarma, Advocate, Ms. K. D. Sarmah, Advocate.
Respondents:
1. State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 12 of 48
2. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Department of Personnel (B), Assam Secretariat, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. 3. Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
4. Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 5. Assam Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Khanapara, Guwahati-781032. 6. Secretary, Assam Public Service Commission, Khanapara, Guwahati-781032.
By Advocates: Mr. B. J. Talukdar, Govt. Advocate, Mr. H. K. Mahanta, SC, Personnel Department,
Mr. C. Barua, SC, APSC.
WP(C) No. 2003 of 2014
Petitioners :
1. Abdul Jalil, S/o of Lt. Abdul Mazid, R/o House No. 10, Sewali Path, FA Ahmed Nagar, Panjabari Road, Guwahati-781022.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 13 of 48
2. Dr. Monjul Islam, S/o Lt. Hasan Ali, R/o Vill. Dhingorati, PO & PS-Laharighat, Dist-Morigaon, PIN-782127 (Assam).
3. Dr. Ankan Chaudhury, S/o Sri Jagadhar Chaudhury, House No. 26, Lichubagan, Hengrabari, Guwahati-781036.
By Advocates: Mr. A. K. Sarma, Advocate,
Mr. H. J. Tamuli, Advocate, Ms. P. Borthakur, Advocate.
Respondents:
1. State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
2. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Personnel (B), Assam Secretariat, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
3. Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
4. Deputy Secretary to the
Govt. of Assam, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
5. Assam Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 14 of 48
6. Secretary, Assam Public Service
Commission, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
By Advocates: Mr. B. J. Talukdar, Govt. Advocate,
Mr. H. K. Mahanta, SC, Personnel Department, Mr. C. Barua, SC, APSC.
WP(C) No. 2180 of 2014
Petitioners :
1. Nekibuddin Ahmed, S/o Lt. D. Ahmed, R/o Ganeshguri Chariali, Near Kalyanpur Masjid, House No. 43, Guwahati-781006, Assam.
2. Sri Partha Pratim Talukdar, S/o Lt. S. N. Talukdar, House No.-28, Arunoday Path, Christian Basti,Guwahati-781005, Assam.
3. Sri Chandan Kalita, S/o Bilat Ch. Kalita, Morokhat, Chaygaon, Kamrup, Pin-781124.
By Advocates: Mr. Sheeladitya, Advocate, Mr. D. Baruah, Advocate. Respondents:
1. State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 15 of 48
to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
2. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Personnel (B), Assam Secretariat, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
3. Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Agriculture Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
4. Deputy Secretary to the
Govt. of Assam, Agriculture Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
5. Assam Public Service Commission, Represented by its Chairman, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
6. Secretary, Assam Public Service Commission, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
By Advocates: Mr. B. J. Talukdar, Govt. Advocate. Mr. H. K. Mahanta, SC, Personnel Department,
Mr. M. Phukan, SC, Agriculture Department, Mr. C. Barua, SC, APSC.
WP(C) No. 2238 of 2014
Petitioners :
1. Sri Pranob Goswami, S/o Lt. Paramananda Goswami, Dhullie Tea Estate, P.O.-Pabhoi, P. S.- Biswanath Chariali, Dist-Sonitpur (Assam), PIN-784174.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 16 of 48
2. Sri Rajumoni Dutta,
S/o Sri Prafulla Dutta, JEC Road, Vill+PO-Garamur, PS-Jorhat, Dist-Jorhat, PIN-785007.
3. Sri Manebendra Deka, S/o Lt. J. R. Das, Vill:Naburka, P.O. Khudradimu, Dist-Kamrup, Assam. PIN-781382.
By Advocates: Mr. J. Roy, Advocate, Mr. P. Hazarika, Advocate,
Mr. S. Kakoti, Advocate, Mr. R. Hazarika, Advocate.
Respondents:
1. State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
2. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Personnel (B), Assam Secretariat, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
3. Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Agriculture Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781022.
4. Deputy Secretary to the
Govt. of Assam, Agriculture Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
5. Assam Public Service Commission,
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 17 of 48
Represented by its Chairman, Khanapara, Guwahati-781006.
6. Secretary, Assam Public Service Commission, Jawahar Nagar, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
7. Deputy Secretary, Assam Public Service Commission, Jawahar Nagar, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
By Advocates: Mr. B. J. Talukdar, Govt. Advocate, Mr. H. K. Mahanta, SC, Personnel Department,
Mr. M. Phukan, SC, Agriculture Department, Mr. C. Barua, SC, APSC.
WP(C) No. 2178 of 2014
Petitioners :
1. Dr. Ranjan Singha, S/o Sri Lakhi Singha, R/o Satgaon, House No. 31, Manipuri Colony, PO Udyan Vihar, Guwahati-781071.
2. Dr. Apurba Das, S/o Late Dalim Das, R/o Chandrapur Tiniali, No.2 Chandrapur Village, POChandrapur, PS Pragjyotishpur, Dist-Kamrup(M), Assam, PIN-781150.
3. Dr. Ananta Kalita, S/o Lt. Betharam Kalita, R/o Hiranagar, Kumaronichiga, P.O. Rajabheta, PS-Dibrugarh, Dist-Dibrugarh, Assam, PIN-786001.
4. Dr. Tapan Kr. Gogoi, S/o Sri Mahendra Nath Gogoi,
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 18 of 48
R/o Mancotta Khania Gaon, PO-Khania Gaon, PS-Dibrugarh, Dist-Dibrugarh, Assam, PIN-786003.
5. Dr. Iswar Sarma, S/o Late Hem Ch. Sarma, R/o Vidyapur, Ward No. 3, PS-Nalbari, Dist-Nalbari, Assam, PIN-781335.
By Advocates: Mr. R. Sarma, Advocate,
Mr. K. Sarma, Advocate, Ms. K. D. Sarma, Advocate, Ms. B. Devi, Advocate.
Respondents:
1. State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
2. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Personnel (B), Assam Secretariat, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
3. Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
4. Deputy Secretary to the
Govt. of Assam, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
5. Assam Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 19 of 48
6. Secretary, Assam Public Service
Commission, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
By Advocates: Mr. B. J. Talukdar, Govt. Advocate, Mr. H. K. Mahanta, SC, Personnel Department,
Mr. C. Barua, SC, APSC.
WP(C) No. 2157 of 2014
Petitioner :
Nayan Kr. Das, S/o Sri Girin Ch. Das, R/o Ward No. 04, Santipur, Mangaldai, PO & PS-Mangaldai, Dist-Darrang, Assam.
By Advocates: Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, Advocate, Mr. A. K. Ahmed, Advocate, Mr. M. I. Hussain, Advocate. Respondents:
1. State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
2. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Personnel (B), Assam Secretariat, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
3. Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 20 of 48
4. Deputy Secretary to the
Govt. of Assam, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
5. Assam Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
6. Secretary, Assam Public Service Commission, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
By Advocates: Mr. B. J. Talukdar, Govt. Advocate, Mr. H. K. Mahanta, SC, Personnel Department,
Mr. C. Barua, SC, APSC.
WP(C) No. 846 of 2014
Petitioners :
1. Shri Deba Kumar Sarmah, S/o Sri Ruchi Nath Sarmah, Bijoy Nagar, Noonmati, Guwahati-781020, Dist-Kamrup, Assam.
2. Shri Nabajit Goswami, S/o Shri Debendra Nath Goswami, House No.-14, Kushal Konwar Path, (Kanaklata-Ajanta Path), Survey, P.O.-Beltola, Dist-Kamrup, Assam.
3. Shri Haren Das, S/o Madan Das, House No.-23, Sankar Path, Hatigaon, Guwahati-781006, Dist-Kamrup, Assam.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 21 of 48
4. Shri Jugajyoti Choudhury,
S/o Girish Ch. Choudhury, P.O.-Baladmari, Goalpara, Dist-Goalpara, Assam.
5. Shri Mohibul Hussain, S/o Monzil Hussain, Vill-Bengarbhita, P.O.-Kalapani, Dist-Dhubri, Assam.
6. Sri Rajib Kumar Bhattacharyya, S/o Ramesh Ch. Bhattacharya, Kumar Para Pachali, P.O.-Bharalumukh, Guwahati-9.
7. Shri Lakhi Kanta Changmai, S/o Lt. Ram Chandra Changmai, Kanchan Nagar, P.O.-Borbheta, Jorhat-785004, Dist-Jorhat, Assam.
8. Pratim Baruah, S/o Birinchi Kumar Baruah, A.T. Road, Jorhat, P.O.:Chemgeligaon, Dist-Jorhat, Assam.
9. Jafri Hakim, S/o:Md. Abdul Hakim, VIP Road, near Govt. Boys School, P.O. & P.S.: Nagaon, Dist:Nagaon, Assam.
10. Harun Al Rachid, S/o:Lt. Badaruddin Ahmed, Jayanta Enclave, Flat B-02, VIP Road, Six Mile, Guwahati-781022, Dist-Kamrup, Assam.
11. Sidhartha Sankar Borah, S/o: Bhumidhar Borah,
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 22 of 48
Vill-Chakari Gaon, PO:Dimoruguri,Dist:Nagaon, Assam.
12. Raihan Hussain, S/o:Lt. Mosharrof Hussain, Vill: Udaynagar, P.O. :Baladmari, Dist:Goalpara, Assam.
13. Sweety Bora Hazarika, C/o:Bidyut Bijoy Hazarika, Mazgaon (Khara Ati) P.O.: Tezpur, Dist-Sonitpur, Assam.
14. Kumur Uddin Ahmed, S/o Lt. Insan Ali, Vill-:Mairamara, P.O.:Howly, Dist-Barpeta, Assam.
15. Ezaz M. Anwar, S/o Lt. Anwareel Haque, C/o Mrs. Rafika Rahman, Opposite Khubchand Store, Cole Road, New Market, Dist:Dibrugarh-786001.
16. Sri Ramen Kalita, S/o-Sri Sabin Ch. Kalita, Vill: Athara, P.O-Puthimari, P.S.-Rangia, Dist-Kamrup, PIN-781380.
By Advocates: Mr. A. K. Sarma, Advocate,
Mr. H. J. Tamuli, Advocate, Mr. P. Borthakur, Advocate.
Respondents:
1. State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 23 of 48
to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
2. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Personnel (B), Assam Secretariat, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
3. Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Agriculture Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
4. Deputy Secretary to the
Govt. of Assam, Agriculture Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
5. Assam Public Service Commission, Represented by its Chairman, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
6. Secretary, Assam Public Service Commission, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
By Advocates: Mr. B. J. Talukdar, Govt. Advocate, Mr. H. K. Mahanta, SC, Personnel Department,
Mr. M. Phukan, SC, Agriculture Department, Mr. C. Barua, SC, APSC.
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Dates of hearing : 15.07.2015 & 21.07.2015
Date of Judgment : 03.08.2015
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 24 of 48
J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R (ORAL)
All the above cases were heard together since the subject
matter of all the cases is identical and are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. In this bunch of writ petitions, primary challenge made
is to the validity of office memorandum No. ABP.513/79/09 dated
27.03.1980 of the Personnel (B) Department, Govt. of Assam read
with office memorandum No. ABP.73/89/17 dated 04.01.1992 of
the said Department in so far it restricts the benefit of age
relaxation for entering into Government service only to persons who
are in the service of the State Government.
3. Shorn of details, basic facts which may be necessary for
adjudication of this bunch of writ petitions may be briefly set out.
4. In WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178 and 2003 of 2014,
petitioners had responded to an advertisement issued by the Assam
Public Service Commission (APSC) bearing advertisement No.
12/2012 dated 19.10.2012 whereby applications were invited from
eligible candidates to fill up 115 vacancies in the post of Veterinary
Assistant Surgeon (VAS)/Extension Officer [EO (Veterinary)] in the
Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Govt. of Assam. As
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 25 of 48
per the said advertisement, to be eligible, a candidate should be
between 21 years of age and 38 years of age as on 01.01.2012, with
the upper age limit being relaxable by 5 years in case of SC/ST
candidates. It was also provided that relaxation of upper age limit
will be considered as per existing rules. Petitioners are veterinary
graduates and have the educational qualifications to be recruited for
the aforesaid post. However, according to the petitioners, though
they fulfill the educational criteria as mentioned in the
advertisement, they have exceeded the upper age limit of 38 years
as on 01.01.2012 as per the said advertisement and thus rendered
ineligible.
5. Petitioners had submitted representation before the
Government to condone their overage, thereby allowing them to
appear in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated
19.10.2012 and to consider their candidature on merit. It appears
that Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Animal
Husbandry and Veterinary Department had favourably considered
the prayer of the petitioners. Secretary, APSC was informed vide
letter dated 20.03.2013 that the Government had approved
appearance of the petitioners in the interview for recruitment to the
above post to be considered on merit notwithstanding the fact that
petitioners had exceeded the upper age limit. Secretary, APSC
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 26 of 48
informed the Departmental Commissioner and Secretary vide letter
dated 14.06.2013 that 90 applications were forwarded to the APSC
by the Government for condonation of over-age. APSC had
considered applications of 6 candidates who were working as
Government employees under the State Government of Assam.
Stating that the remaining applicants were not in service under the
Government of Assam till receipt of application forms, APSC stated
that it was not in a position to consider their cases. However, APSC
was of the view that veterinary graduates have very little
opportunity for absorption in private sector and there is every
likelihood that some highly qualified persons would be deprived
from employment though they have the requisite skill and expertise.
APSC therefore requested the Government to amend the provisions
of the Government office memoranda suitably so that it would be
open to the over-aged persons to compete in the selection process as
special case.
6. Thus over-age of the petitioners was not condoned and
accordingly, they were held not eligible to participate in the selection
process.
7. This led to filing of the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions
relating to the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 27 of 48
8. This Court by order dated 05.03.2014 had admitted the
first writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 845/2014 and as an interim
measure, directed the APSC to allow the petitioners to participate in
the selection process, but it was made clear that the results of the
selection process should not be declared. Similar orders were
passed in the other cases.
9. In the second group of cases i.e. WP(C) Nos. 2180, 2238
and 846/2014, advertisement No. 1/2013 dated 05.04.2013 was
issued by the APSC to fill up 80 vacancies in the post of Agriculture
Development Officer (ADO) in the Agriculture Department, Govt. of
Assam. As per the said advertisement, the age of the candidates
should be between 21 years to 38 years as on 01.01.2013, relaxable
by 5 years in case of SC/ST candidates.
10. Petitioners are agriculture graduates and have the
educational qualifications to hold the post of ADO. However, they
are over-aged as per the said advertisement since they were above
38 years of age as on 01.01.2013.
11. Like the other group of cases relating to the Animal
Husbandry and Veterinary Department, petitioners of this group of
cases had also moved the Government for condonation of their over-
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 28 of 48
age, which was favourably considered by the Government and
forwarded to the APSC. However, the APSC took a similar stand as
in the other group of cases. Consequently, petitioners were found to
be age-barred for the selection process in terms of the advertisement
dated 05.04.2013. This led to filing of the second group of cases
where also similar interim orders were passed by this Court.
12. A group of candidates who were within the prescribed
age limit and who had responded to the advertisement dated
19.10.2012 for the post of VAS/EO (Veterinary) got themselves
impleaded as respondents in WP(C) No. 845/2014. Thereafter they
filed an application for modification of the interim order, which was
registered as Misc. Case No. 616/2015. In the hearing of Misc. Case
No. 616/2015, it was contended on behalf of the
applicants/impleaded respondents that they are eligible candidates
and had appeared in the selection test but the results have been
withheld because of the interim order passed by this Court. It was
contended that by the interim order the writ petitioners were
permitted to appear in the selection process but it was held that the
results should not be declared. It was therefore contended that the
restraint order was passed in respect of the writ petitioners and not
as a general one restraining declaration of results of all the
candidates. The said misc. case was disposed of by this Court on
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 29 of 48
01.04.2015 by taking the view that it would be just and proper if the
APSC declared the results of both the recruitment processes relating
to VAS/EO (Veterinary) and ADO. It was accordingly ordered,
however with the observation that results of the writ petitioners in
the recruitment processes would be subject to the outcome of the
writ petitions.
13. It is stated at the Bar that despite the aforesaid
clarification by the Court, results of the selection process
undertaken pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.10.2012 have
not been declared, though results of written examination pursuant
to the advertisement dated 05.04.2013 have been declared.
14. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. J. Roy,
Mr. R. Sarma, Mr. A. K. Sarma and Mr. P. Hazarika, learned counsel
for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Govt.
Advocate, Assam, Mr. H. K. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel,
Personnel Department, Mr. M. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel,
Agriculture Department and Mr. C. Barua, learned Standing
Counsel, APSC. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Ms. K. Dutta, learned counsel have appeared for the added private
respondents.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 30 of 48
15. Referring to the office memorandum (OM) dated
27.03.1980, Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
submits that relaxation of upper age limit for entering into
Government service is provided in the interest of fair dealing or in
the public interest. By the OM dated 27.03.1980, age relaxation was
permissible upto 40 years. Benefit of such age relaxation is
extendable only to those who are in the service of the State
Government of Assam. However, in case of direct recruitment not
through the APSC such relaxation may also be allowed to those who
are not in the service of the State Govt. of Assam. In case of
recruitment through APSC, APSC should be consulted before
relaxation is permitted. By subsequent OM dated 04.01.1992,
relaxation of upper age limit has been extended up-to 45 years of
age. Mr. Das submits that in so far recruitment to lower grades,
such as Gr-IV and Gr-III, are concerned relaxation of upper age limit
is also allowed to those who may not be in the service of the State
Government but in case of higher service and posts where
recruitment is through the APSC, such benefit can be extended only
to those who are in the service of the State Government of Assam.
Thus, in case of recruitment to higher grades, a classification is
sought to be made between those who are in Government service
under the Government of Assam and those who are not in service
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 31 of 48
under the Government of Assam. He submits that because the
petitioners are not in service under the Government of Assam, they
have been denied the benefit of age relaxation. He therefore submits
that this classification is arbitrary and discriminatory and has no
nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the OM i.e.
relaxation of upper age limit of deserving candidates for entry into
Government service in the interest of fair dealing or in the public
interest. Therefore, the impugned OM dated 27.03.1980 as modified
by the subsequent OM dated 04.01.1992 is clearly violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution and should be declared as
unconstitutional. In support of his submissions, Mr. Das, learned
Senior Counsel, has placed reliance on the following decisions of the
Apex Court:-
1. (1989) 2 SCC 145 (Deepak Sibal Vs Punjab
University & Ors),
2. (2005) 1 SCC 625 (Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd.
Vs Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.), and
3. (2014) 8 SCC 682 (Subramanian Swamy Vs Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.).
Further submission of Mr. Das is that this Court having
permitted the petitioners to appear in the selection process and the
petitioners having appeared in the selection process, it would
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 32 of 48
neither be just nor fair to now disqualify the petitioners from the
selection process on the ground of being over-aged. He, therefore,
submits that case of the petitioners may be considered on their
individual merit as eligible candidates and the results of the
selection process should accordingly be declared.
16. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the
Personnel Department has referred to the affidavit filed by the said
Department in WP(C) No. 845/2014. He has asserted that the OM
dated 27.03.1980 is neither in violation nor in transgression of the
constitutional provisions. State of Assam is justified in permitting
upper-age relaxation in respect of those candidates who are in the
service of the Government of Assam which condition is applicable to
higher grades in the Government service since the OM itself clarifies
that for Gr-III and Gr-IV posts not only the persons serving under
the Govt. of Assam but also other State Governments are eligible.
Relaxation of upper-age limit is meant for the State Government
employees who have already gained valuable experience working
under the Government of Assam. Since petitioners are not in service
under the Govt. of Assam, they are not eligible for condonation of
their over-age. Mr. Mahanta, therefore, submits that the said OM,
particularly Clause 2 (3) thereof, is not violative of Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India and no interference is called for. On
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 33 of 48
the other hand, he submits that if persons like the petitioners are
granted the benefit of upper age relaxation, it will cause serious
prejudice to those candidates who did not approach the authority in
view of the age prescriptions in the advertisements and who do not
have the wherewithal to approach the Court. Therefore, the
contentions advanced by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
17. However, the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary
Department has taken a stand different from the stand taken by the
Personnel Department. In its affidavit, it has stated that State of
Assam is the only principal employer of veterinary graduates who
pass out from the State University. There is very little opportunity
for appointment of veterinary graduates in private sector or
elsewhere. Last time veterinary graduates were recruited by the
State through APSC was in the year 2010 but the number of
persons recruited was minimal. Since the entry level post of
veterinary graduates in the State is VAS/EO (Veterinary), there is no
scope of them having experience as Government servants. In the
light of the above, the Department has accorded approval for
condonation of upper-age limit of the petitioners. Opposing the
classification adopted by the Personnel Department between those
in the service of the State Government of Assam and those not in
the service of the State Government of Assam for the purpose of age
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 34 of 48
relaxation, the stand of the Department is that relaxation of upper-
age limit up-to 45 years may be allowed to the candidates applying
for the posts of VAS/EO (Veterinary) irrespective of whether they
are in the service of the State Government or not and for this
purpose Department had accorded approval for condonation of
upper-age limit of the petitioners which was rejected by the APSC.
18. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the
Agriculture Department supports the stand of the Animal
Husbandry and Veterinary Department and placed reliance on the
affidavit filed by the Agriculture Department in WP(C) No.
846/2014. He submits that ADO is the entry level post for the
agriculture science graduates of the State. There has been very little
recruitment of agriculture graduates in the State in the recent past.
In such circumstances, Agriculture Department had requested
APSC to accept the candidature of those applicants who have
applied for condonation of their over-age.
19. Mr. C. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, APSC submits
from the affidavit filed that APSC is bound to follow the eligibility
criteria as mentioned in the advertisements. After scrutiny of the
applications of the writ petitioners, their candidatures were rejected
as they were found to be over-aged as per the age prescription
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 35 of 48
mentioned in the advertisements. Though their names were
forwarded by the concerned Department for condonation of their
over-age the same could not be considered as they are not in the
service of the State Government either as regular employee or on
contractual basis. In the light of the provisions contained in the OM
dated 27.03.1980 confining the benefit of age relaxation in respect
of the higher posts to those in service under the Government of
Assam, he submits that petitioners are ineligible because of their
over-age, though APSC sympathized with the predicament of the
petitioners and therefore had suggested to the Government to
suitably amend the OM dated 27.03.1980 so that candidates like
the petitioners can be conferred the benefit of age relaxation.
20. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties
have received the due consideration of the Court.
21. Since constitutionality of the OM dated 27.03.1980 as
modified by the OM dated 04.01.1992 is central to the deliberation,
the same may be extracted hereunder in its entirety:-
“ The 27th March, 1980
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Government have had under consideration for some time past the exercise of powers by the competent authorities under Notification No. AAP-34/50/27, dated 03.05.1951 in respect of relaxation of the age limit for recruitment to Civil Services or Civil posts in connection with the affairs of the State.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 36 of 48
2. Government after due consideration are pleased to lay down the following revised principles for guidance in dealing with the cases for relaxation of age limit under the said Notification:- (1) Relaxation from the fixed age limit is to be granted only in the interest of fair dealing or in the public interest and one of these conditions must be satisfied before the age limit can be relaxed in favour of an individual candidate. (2) The relaxation is to be granted under the powers conferred in the Notification by the appointing authority. In the case of appointments made by the Governor, the appropriate Administrative Department will be responsible for granting the relaxation. In cases in which appointment is made by the Head of Department such Head will grant the relaxation. (3) In case of direct recruitment to the Lowest cadre or post through the Assam Public Service Commission as per provisions of the service Rules regulating recruitment to the various services and posts relaxation upto the age of 40 years may be granted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in sub-para (4) below.
Such relaxation may be allowed only in case of those who are in the services of this State Government.
In cases where the direct recruitment is not made through the APSC the
relaxation may be allowed to those also who are not in the services of this State Government. (4) In case in which recruitment is made through the Assam Public Service Commission, the Commission should be consulted before the rules are relaxed in the following manner:- The appointing authority when approached by a candidate for granting exemption, if it is satisfied that the case deserves consideration shall refer the case to the Assam Public Service Commission to consider it on merits notwithstanding the candidate exceeding the age limit and the Commission shall then not reject the candidate merely on the grounds of his being over-age. The commission shall make its final recommendation having regard to the fact of the candidate being overage and will state whether in its opinion this makes the candidate unsuitable for the appointment in question. 3. No reference to Personnel Department in individual cases either by the Administrative Department or Heads of Departments is necessary provided that the principles laid down above are followed by them.
This supersedes Government OM No. AAP-34/50/26, dated 03.05.1951. OM No. AAP-135/61/1 dated 26/10/1961 and OM No. AAP-200/70/79 dated 15/03/73.”
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 37 of 48
22. By the subsequent OM dated 04.01.1992, age
relaxation has been extended up-to 45 years instead of 40 years as
was the case earlier in modification of clause 2 (3) of the OM dated
27.03.1980.
23. From a careful reading of the OM dated 27.03.1980, it
is seen that the same has been issued to revise the principles
relating to age relaxation for entry into Government service as laid
down in the initial notification No. AAP-34/50/27 dated
03.05.1951.
24. But before adverting to the aforesaid notification dated
03.05.1951, it would be useful to first highlight the relevant
provisions of the OM dated 27.03.1980 as modified by the OM dated
04.01.1992.
25. A conjoint reading of the two office memoranda dated
27.03.1980 and 04.01.1992 would show that the upper age limit for
recruitment to Government employment can be relaxed upto the age
of 45 years. However, such relaxation may be allowed only in case of
those who are in the service of the State Government, an exception
being carved out where recruitment is not made through the APSC.
The objective behind the two office memoranda and the purpose for
relaxation of the upper age limit in matters of recruitment to public
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 38 of 48
service, it appears, is to ensure a fair deal to a deserving candidate
who is otherwise over-aged and, therefore, ineligible or in the public
interest. One of these two conditions must be satisfied before the
age limit can be relaxed in favour of the individual candidate. The
office memorandum dated 27.03.1980 provides that where the
direct recruitment is not made through the APSC, the relaxation
may be allowed to those candidates also who are not in the service
of the State Govt., but in case of recruitment which is made through
the APSC, the APSC should be consulted before such relaxation is
granted. The procedure for such relaxation is provided in the office
memorandum itself. The appointing authority when approached by
a candidate for granting relaxation of the upper age limit, if he is
satisfied that the case deserves consideration, he shall refer the case
to the APSC to consider the case on merit, notwithstanding the fact
that the candidate had exceeded the age limit. Discretion is vested
with the APSC to make the final recommendation, whether to relax
the upper age limit or not keeping in view the merit of each
individual case.
26. Thus, it is evident that in case of recruitment through
APSC, relaxation of upper age limit is allowed only in case of those
who are in the service of the State Govt. But where the recruitment
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 39 of 48
is not made through APSC, such relaxation is also extendable to
those who are not in the service of the State Govt. It is also evident
that in case of recruitment through APSC, discretion is vested with
the APSC. No relaxation can be granted without consulting the
APSC.
27. A copy of the Government notification No. AAP-
34/50/27 dated 03.05.1951 could be traced to the Handbook of
General Circulars of Govt. of Assam (blue book). The said
notification is quoted hereunder:-
“ AAP.34/50/27, General rules for relaxation of age limits 3.5.1951 4. In pursuance of the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of
India, the Governor of Assam is pleased to make the following general rules regarding relaxation of the age limit for recruitment to civil services or civil posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Assam-
(1) “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in rules regulating the maximum or minimum age of recruitment to a service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Assam, the age limit may be relaxed in favour of any candidate or class of candidates only if (i) in cases in which the appointing authority is the Governor, or (ii) in other cases, the Head of the Department, considers this necessary in the interest of fair dealing or in the public interest.
(2) In this rule ‘Head of Department’ means the authority who is declared to be the Head of the Department for the purpose of the Fundamental Rules and of the Subsidiary and Supplementary Rules made by the State Government, and includes a District and Sessions Judge.
(3) In case in which recruitment is made through the Public Service Commission, the Commission shall be consulted before the rule is relaxed.”
28. A perusal of the aforesaid notification dated 03.05.1951
would indicate that the said notification was issued under the
provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India laying down
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 40 of 48
general rules regarding relaxation of the age limit for recruitment to
civil services or civil posts in connection with the affairs of the State
of Assam. The notification dated 03.05.1951 provided for such age
relaxation in cases where it was considered necessary in the interest
of fair dealing or in the public interest. The benefit was extendable
in favour of any candidate or class of candidates. If either of these
two conditions, namely, in the interest of fair dealing or in the
public interest was satisfied, the age limit could be relaxed in favour
of an individual candidate. However, in the OM dated 27.03.1980, a
departure has been made to the effect that such relaxation has been
confined only to persons who are in the service of the State
Government of Assam. The language used is “in the services of this
State Government”. However, as already noticed, such relaxation is
also extendable to those who are not “in the services of this State
Government” in case of direct recruitment which is not through the
APSC, in other words for posts in lower grades. Thus the notification
dated 03.05.1951 stood amended/modified by the OM dated
27.03.1980.
29. It is evident that the 1951 notification was issued by the
Governor in exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution. A fortiori an amendment or modification to the
said notification would require following the due procedure. A little
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 41 of 48
elaboration on this aspect is called for. A set of rules was framed for
relaxation of age limit for entry into Government service in the State
of Assam. It was framed in exercise of the power conferred by the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. A careful analysis of the
said provision would show that when such a rule is made, it would
continue to hold the field until provision in that behalf is made by or
under an Act of the appropriate Legislature. Therefore, a rule
framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution shall be
effective subject to the provisions of such an Act made by the
appropriate Legislature. As a corollary to the above, logically it
would follow that when a matter or subject is covered by a rule
made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, it would
not be open to the State to modify or amend such a rule by issuing
administrative instructions or guidelines. The same procedure
followed in introducing the rule would have to be followed in
modifying or amending it. In other words, a rule framed under the
proviso to Article 309 would either be subject to a statutory
enactment or can be amended or modified by a rule made under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. A perusal of the impugned
OM dated 27.03.1980 does not indicate that the proper procedure
as discussed above has been followed. There is thus clear
procedural lapse while issuing the OM dated 27.03.1980.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 42 of 48
30. Though the OM dated 27.03.1980 can be set aside only
on the above ground, since substantive arguments were advanced
on the ground of violation of Article 14, Court is of the view that
such objections need to be adjudicated upon to arrive at a
comprehensive decision.
31. As already noticed above, the object of the OM dated
27.03.1980 is to ensure that in the matter of recruitment to
Government service in the State of Assam, in the interest of fair
dealing or in the public interest, over-age of an individual candidate
can be condoned or relaxed. The objective is to ensure a fair dealing
to a deserving candidate who is otherwise over-aged and thus
ineligible to participate in the selection process. However, it needs to
be pointed out that relaxation of upper-age limit in the case of a
candidate seeking public employment is not to be granted in a
routine manner. No candidate can demand as a matter of right that
the upper age limit should be relaxed in his case. As noticed above,
such relaxation would be permissible only in the interest of fair
dealing or in the public interest. This was the object of the original
OM dated 03.05.1951 as well as of the impugned OM dated
27.03.1980. While the OM dated 03.05.1951 did not prescribe any
fixed age up-to which relaxation was permissible, the impugned OM
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 43 of 48
as modified by the subsequent OM dated 04.01.1992 has extended
the benefit upto 45 years. The OM dated 27.03.1980 in so far
recruitment to posts through the APSC is concerned confines the
benefit of age relaxation to those category of candidates who are “in
the services of this State Government” meaning thereby those who
are in the service of the State Government of Assam. All other
candidates whether serving under other Governments or in the
private sector or who are not in service at all i.e., unemployed,
would stand excluded from such benefit. Therefore, a classification
has been made between two groups. One group which is entitled to
the benefit of age relaxation comprising of those who are in the
service of the Government of Assam and the other group comprising
of those who are not in the service of the Government of Assam.
32. Question for consideration is whether such a
classification is a reasonable one or whether such a classification
would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
33. Article 14 provides that the State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within
the territory of India.
34. Right to equality is a basic feature of our Constitution.
Any treatment of equals unequally will be a breach of the equality
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 44 of 48
clause and thus violative of such basic feature. Article 14 forbids
class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification of
persons etc. for the purpose of achieving specific objective. For a
classification to be reasonable, the following two tests must be
fulfilled:-
1. The classification should not be arbitrary. It must be
based on an intelligible differentia which clearly
distinguishes the persons or things grouped together as
one category from the others left out of it.
2. The differentia which is adopted as the basis of
classification must have a rational or reasonable nexus
with the object sought to be achieved. In other words,
there must be a live link or nexus between the
intelligible differentia based on which the classification
is made and the object sought to be achieved.
35. Article 14 together with Articles 19 and 21 of the
Constitution have received the maximum attention of the Apex
Court as these articles form the core of our constitutional values.
Article 14 has been explained and interpreted in several leading
decisions of the Supreme Court. It is not necessary to revisit all
those decisions at this stage. However, adverting to the doctrine of
classification, it needs to be pointed out that the Apex Court has
sounded a note of caution by pointing out that the doctrine of
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 45 of 48
classification is only a subsidiary rule evolved by the Courts to give
practical content to the doctrine of equality. The Supreme Court has
warned against over-emphasis on the doctrine of classification as it
may erode or impeach upon Article 14 itself making it ineffective. In
the recent Constitution Bench decision in Subramaniun Swamy
(Supra), all the principles governing Article 14 have been succinctly
culled out and restated. After surveying the case laws governing the
subject, the Apex Court observed as follows :-
“70. Undoubtedly, every differentiation is not a discrimination but at the same time, differentiation must be founded on pertinent and real differences as distinguished from irrelevant and artificial ones. A simple physical grouping which separates one category from the other without any rational basis is not a sound or intelligible differentia. The separation or segregation must have a systematic relation and rational basis and the object of such segregation must not be discriminatory...................”
36. In so far the present case is concerned the object
sought to be achieved by the impugned OM by providing for age
relaxation is to ensure a fair dealing to a deserving individual
candidate or in the public interest. The classification made is
Government servants serving under the Govt. of Assam as one
group on the one hand and those who are not serving under the
Govt. of Assam as the other group on the other hand. Is this
classification reasonable? Is this classification rational? What is the
intelligible differentia applied while classifying the two groups? In
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 46 of 48
the affidavit filed by the Personnel Department, the justification
given for the classification is that those who were in the service of
the State Government of Assam have already gained valuable
experience while working under the Government. Therefore, to
utilize their services, they should be given the benefit of age
relaxation to the exclusion of others.
37. I am afraid such classification is neither rational nor
reasonable and is not based on any intelligible differentia having
nexus to the object sought to be achieved. There appears to be no
discernible principle in confining the benefit of age relaxation to only
those candidates who are already in the service of the Government
of Assam to the exclusion of others.
38. Mr. Das has rightly placed reliance in the case of
Deepak Sibal (Supra). That was a case where a rule was enacted by
the Punjab University confining admission to LLB degree course in
the evening classes to only regular employees of Government/semi
Government institutions, affiliated colleges, statutory corporations
and Government companies. All other candidates were excluded.
This rule was challenged by two petitioners, one in private
employment and the other who was not in employment, as being
discriminatory and violative of Article 14. The writ petition was
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 47 of 48
initially dismissed by the High Court. When the matter came up
before the Apex Court, it was held that such a classification was not
based on any reasonable or rational criteria besides being
discriminatory and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
39. Following the above discussion, this Court is of the
unhesitant view that such a classification as made out in the
impugned OM dated 27.03.1980 cannot stand the test of Article 14
of the Constitution and is liable to be struck down as such.
Therefore, OM dated 27.03.1980 is held to be invalid on both the
grounds as discussed above.
40. Following the above conclusion, respondents are
directed to consider the case of the petitioners for upper age
relaxation on their individual merit. In each case, the appointing
authority shall consider the prayer for age relaxation in consultation
with the APSC in the light of the discussions made above. The fact
that petitioners were allowed to appear in the selection process
pursuant to orders of this Court shall also be borne in mind. Their
recruitment shall however be dependent on their performance in the
selection process as well as the decision taken by the appointing
authority for relaxation of their over-age.
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 48 of 48
41. APSC shall thereafter declare the results of the two
selection processes pursuant to the advertisements dated
18.10.2012 and 05.04.2013 without further delay.
42. Writ petitions are accordingly allowed but without any
order as to cost.
JUDGE
Aparna