Gauhati High Court
Md Abu Suvan vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 22 July, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010159402025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/231/2025
MD ABU SUVAN
S/O LATE ABU SAIM, R/O VILL. AND P.O. PURANIGUDAM, P.S. SAMAGURI,
DIST. NAGAON 782141, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM, FISHERY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6
2:THE ADDL. SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
3:THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
MEEN BHAWAN
GOPINATH
GUWAHATI 16
4:THE DIST. FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
NAGAON
MILANPUR
PIN 782001
5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PERSONNEL (B) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
6:THE SECY.
ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION
KHANAPARA
Page No.# 2/4
GUWAHATI 2
For petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. S.P. Das, Advocate
For respondent(s) : Mr. P. Sarma, SC, Fisheries Deptt.
Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Senior Advocate,
SC, APSC
Mr. P. Saikia, GA, Assam
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
22.07.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
Heard Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Mr. P. Sarma,
learned Standing Counsel, Fisheries Department; Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Standing
Counsel, Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) and Mr. P. Saikia, learned
Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondents.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.07.2025, passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2840/2025, wherein his prayer for consideration of
relaxation of upper age limit for him to participate in the recruitment process has been
rejected.
3. The records reveal that the appellant/writ petitioner was in contractual
employment in the Fisheries Department, Government of Assam, and after having
served for about seven years, wanted to participate in the recruitment process for
which advertisement was issued by the said department. However, by that time the
appellant had come of age and was 42 years old. The advertisement specified the
upper age limit for consideration of the candidates to be 38 years as on 01.01.2025.
The relevant service rules, namely, "Assam Fisheries and Aquaculture Service Rules,
2024" (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2024" for convenience) provides that a
Page No.# 3/4
candidate for direct recruitment to the service shall be minimum 21 years and
maximum 38 years, or as notified by the Government from time to time, on the 1 st
January of the year of advertisement with relaxation in case of the candidates
belonging to special categories like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and any other
category as laid down by the Government from time to time.
4. The appellant has not been able to show to us that he fell in any of the
categories specified in the Rules of 2024 for which there could be consideration for
relaxation of the upper age limit.
5. However, the grievance of the appellant is that Rule 25 of the Rules of 2024 does
provide for relaxation of the age limit in cases where there are undue hardships. The
department has inherent power vested in it to exercise such discretion in appropriate
cases. It has been pointed out that under the orders of this Court, the appellant had
made a representation before the Department for consideration of his case in view of
the provisions contained in Rule 25, about which reference has been made earlier.
However, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fisheries
Department, rejected the prayer of the appellant on the ground that as per
instructions of the Personnel Department, there is no provision for any relaxation for
unreserved candidates applying for Grade-I and Grade-II posts.
6. Mr. Das, while canvassing his case, has submitted that the department did not
consider the provision contained in Rule 25 of the Rules of 2024 nor did the learned
Single Judge.
7. We find that the learned Single Judge has referred to the provisions contained in
Rule 25 of the Rules of 2024 but has held that the inherent power vested in the
Department under Rule 25 is to be exercised in deserving cases only and that Rule 25
cannot be read in isolation but has to be considered in a perspective which remains
consonant with the basic rule relating to minimum and maximum age limit provided in
the service recruitment rules.
Page No.# 4/4
8. The grievance of the appellant, therefore, is that there could be no better case
for consideration of hardship when the appellant remained in contractual service for
seven years and despite large number of vacancies in the department, no recruitment
process was initiated.
9. True it is that the recruitment process in a department has to be prompt and the
process should get kickstarted on annual basis, or subject to the vacancy position, but
that cannot be taken as a ground for considering hardship as contemplated under
Rule 25 of the Rules of 2024. The appellant/writ petitioner may have lost out on age
and any further prospect of working with the government, but that would be the case
with respect to many others who have crossed the upper age limit.
10. A person has the right to be considered for a government post; for livelihood, but
these rights cannot be understood to mean that the recruitment rules, in general,
need be bypassed.
11. We find the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge to be absolutely in
consonance with the proposition that a recruitment drive should be within the
parameters prescribed in the concerned recruitment rules and any deviation in the
form of relaxation of age should only be on a careful consideration of any unusual
hardship. The appellant would have many other avenues. He cannot claim that he has
a right to be employed in government service only.
12. Finding no fault with the judgment impugned in the present appeal, we dismiss
this appeal.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
