Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 17 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010205942022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/358/2022
DR. KHANIN CHANGMAI AND ANR.
S/O- BIPIN CHANGMAI, R/O- SONALI NAGAR, URIANGHAT, P.O.-
URIAMGHAT, DIST.- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785601.
2: DR. PABITRA DAS
S/O- KUMUD CH. DAS
R/O- VILLAGE NATHKUCHI
NO.1
P.O- NATHKUCHI
DIST- NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-78133
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ASOM
SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT.
ASOM SACHIVALAYA
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT.
CHENIKUTHI
GUWAHATI- 781003.
4:THE DIRECTOR
ASSAM AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI
Page No.# 2/5
PIN- 22.
5:THE SECRETARY
ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
JAWAHAR NAGAR
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 781022
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U B SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 17.11.2022
(R.M. Chhaya, CJ.)
Heard Mr. U.B. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr.
R.K. Borah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing
for the respondent No.1 and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior standing counsel,
APSC, assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.5.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment & order dated
05.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5726/2022, the
original petitioners/ appellants have preferred this intra-Court appeal.
The following facts emerge from the record of this appeal. Both the
petitioners/appellants are Bachelor of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Science
(B.V.Sc. & A.H.) Degree from Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat. Pursuant to
the advertisement No.13/2022 dated 22.07.2022 issued by the Assam Public
Service Commission (APSC) for filling up of 162 numbers of posts of Veterinary
Officer/Block Veterinary Officer, Class-B, Class-I (Junior Grade) under Animal
Husbandry & Veterinary Department, the petitioners/appellants applied for the
Page No.# 3/5
same. As per the conditions of the advertisement, the last date for online
application was 26.08.2022 and for General category candidates, the upper age
limit was 38 years. It is the case of the appellants that the appellant No.1
belongs to OBC category and the appellant No.2 belongs to SC category. Even
according to the appellants, as the appellant No.1 belongs to OBC category, the
upper age limit would be 41 years as on 01.01.2022 and in case of appellant
No.2, who belongs to SC category, the upper age limit would be 43 years as on
01.01.2022.
It is the say of the appellants that as per the HSLC Admit Cards, the
appellant No.1 is 53 years 11 months 17 days as on 01.01.2022, whereas the
appellant No.2 is 43 years 11 months. Both of them were over aged. It was the
case of the appellants that the recruiting agency has changed the upper age
limit for the General category candidates and because of the Covid-19 pandemic
age relaxation ought to have been given. Relying upon the orders dated
23.08.2022 and 25.08.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5288/2022, it was
contended that the age relaxation ought to have been granted. The learned
Single Judge by the impugned judgment & order declined such a relief and
being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
Mr. U.B. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended
that the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.5288/2022 permitted
the petitioner of the said petition to submit his online application even though
he was over aged and, therefore, the appellants also should be given the same
benefit. It was also contended by Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that the APSC itself has granted such exemption. Mr. Sarma
contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider such aspect of
parity and, therefore, the appeal requires consideration. According to Mr.
Page No.# 4/5
Sarma, as others are given benefit, the appellants also are entitled to the said
benefit.
Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior standing counsel, APSC has opposed this
appeal and has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated
23.09.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No.301/2022 (Julie Das -Vs- The State
of Assam & 5 Ors.), which relates to the very same advertisement No.13/2022
and has contended that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.
Mr. R.K. Borah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam
has adopted the arguments made by Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior standing
counsel, APSC.
Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is an
admitted position that the advertisement prescribes that as on 01.01.2022 in
case of an OBC candidate the upper age limit would be 41 years and in case of
SC category candidate, it would be 43 years. In Paragraph 5 of the writ petition
itself and considering the Annexures-8 and 9 to the petition which is on record,
admittedly both the appellants were over aged.
This Court in relation to the same advertisement and in a similarly
situated case, i.e. Writ Appeal No.301/2022 (Julie Das -Vs- The State of
Assam & 5 Ors.), has observed thus:-
"8. The date of birth of the appellant as mentioned in Paragraph No. 14 of
the writ petition is 16.03.1976 and, therefore, as on 01.01.2022, the age of the
appellant was 45 years 9 months and 15 days. Thus, admittedly, the appellant
has crossed the upper age limit of 41 years for the OBC candidates as
prescribed in the advertisement dated 22.07.2022. Only because the appellant
is highly qualified and an unemployed lady, the age limit cannot be extended.
Every recruitment process is governed by the recruitment rules and the terms,
conditions and eligibility as prescribed in the advertisement. As per applicable
law the qualification and other eligibility criteria relate back to the date of the
advertisement. In the case on hand, admittedly the appellant was overaged as
Page No.# 5/5
on the date of advertisement. Merely because of filing of representation for
extension of the upper age limit and for extension of the last date of filing of
application does not give any inherent right in favour of the appellant and the
authorities have rightly not considered such prayer made by the appellant.
Even the reliance placed on the proceedings of WP(C) No. 5288/2022 is also
irrelevant as the said proceedings are pending wherein by an order dated
25.08.2022 a learned Single Judge of this Court has permitted the petitioners of
that petition to apply online since the last date of submission of online
application was 26.08.2022. As per record, the present writ petition was filed
on 01.09.2022 i.e. after the last date of submission of application as per the
advertisement and on that count also, any order that may be passed in WP(C)
No. 5288/2022 would not apply to the present case. The learned Single Judge
has rightly observed in Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment that
the order passed in WP(C) No. 5288/2022 is before the last date of submission
of application in terms of the advertisement dated 22.07.2022. On the grounds
that are raised in this appeal, no interference with the impugned judgment and
order is called for.
9. Even at the cost of repetition, it is worthwhile to note that this Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot
alter the eligibility criteria and the age limit prescribed in the advertisement. It is
the prerogative of the recruiting agency to carry out the recruitment process
strictly in accordance with the Rules and, hence, this Court cannot give the
direction as prayed for by the appellant.
We are in total agreement with the observations made by the learned
Single Judge and following the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court
in Writ Appeal No.301/2022 (Julie Das -Vs- The State of Assam & 5 Ors.),
the appeal deserves to be dismissed as is bereft of any merits.
Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
