Gauhati High Court
Md. Asadur Rahman vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 12 February, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010028092021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/62/2021
MD. ASADUR RAHMAN
S/O- MD. WAHIDUR RAHMAN, R/O- VILL.- PUB KAMAR PARA, P.O.
GHANSIMULI, DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF ASSAM,
VETERINARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06.
2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 06.
3:THE DIRECTOR
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
CHENIKUTHI
GUWAHATI-03
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Writ Appeal No.62 of 2021
Md. Asadur Rahman,
aged about 35 years.
S/o. Md. Wahidur Rahman,
R/o. Vill. Pub Kamar Para,
PO: Ghansimuli,
Page No.# 2/3
Dist: Darrang, Assam.
............Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Assam, represented by the
Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Veterinary
Department, Dispur, Guwahati-06.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry
and Veterinary Department, Dispur, Guwahati-06.
3.The Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department,
Assam, Chenikuthi, Guwahati-03.
...............Respondents
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Ali, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 : Mr. T.C. Chutia, Addl. Sr. Government
Advocate, Assam.
Date of hearing of Judgment & Order : 12th February, 2021.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, C.J.)
Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the writ appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C.
Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.
2. The writ appellant before this Court has appealed against the order of the learned Single
Judge (dated 11.02.2021), which was passed in WP(C) No.747/2021, whereby the learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition as the Court did not find the petitioner eligible for
undergoing one year training course in Veterinary Science.
Page No.# 3/3
3. One of the essential conditions for getting one year training was that a candidate must not
be more than thirty years of age as on 1 st January, 2017, and the candidates must have passed
Higher Secondary in "Science". Admittedly, the writ appellant/writ petitioner does not possess
both these criteria/qualifications. He was over-aged and did not have "Science" in his Higher
Secondary. His only case before the learned Single Judge was that in a similar petition which was
filed before the learned Single Judge where the petitioners were similarly situated, relief was
granted to the petitioners therein. Therefore, it was prayed that the same relief be granted to him
as well. The learned Single Judge, however, differentiated at two situations and came to the
conclusions that the relief so granted in the earlier writ petition was because the condition that
the candidate being not more than thirty years and must have done "Science", were conditions
which were to come into effect only from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, which
was 19th August, 2017. Since the exercise predated 19.08.2017, the benefit was granted.
4. This is not the case at hand.
5. In the case of the present writ appellant/writ petitioner, it is for the Department to fix
eligibility as well as qualifications and it is not the domain of this to Court set qualifications. Only
interference can be done to any procedural anomaly. In the present case there is none.
6. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ appeal and the same stands dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
