Gauhati High Court
Jesmina Rahman And 22 Ors vs The State Of Assam And Anr. Represented ... on 3 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010187382025
2025:GAU-AS:11858-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/267/2025
1: JESMINA RAHMAN AND 22 ORS
D/O. JAKIR HUSSAIN, VILL.- LOHAJANI,
P/O. MORAGADADHAR, P/S. GOLAKGANJ, DIST. DHUBRI.
2: ANUPAMA DAS
S/O. NOKA DAS VILL.- BIDYARDABRI PT-I
P/O. BIDYARDABRI P/S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI PIN-783335
3: CHIRONJIT RAY
S/O- PRODIP KR RAY R/O- VILL- DUMARDAHA PT IV
P.O- BALAJAN P.S - GAURIPUR PIN -783331 DIST- DHUBRI
4: CHIRANJIT ROY
S/O - NIRMAL CHANDRA ROY VILL- RAMNATHPARA
P.O- KAMANDANGA P.S- TAMARHAT DIST-DHUBRI PIN-783332
5: OSMAN GANI
S/O-RAHUL AMIN. VILL- PANIAKHAT
P.O- DHULA P.S-DHULA DIST- DARRANG
6: SHAHANA BEGUM
D/O- KAMAL UDDIN AHMED VILL- BAZARGHAT
P.O-BAZARGHAT P.S - RATABARI PIN -788733 DIST- SRIBHUMI
7: SAHIDA KHATUN
D/O- KAZINUR ISLAM VILL- TALOWAGAON
P.O-SRINAGAR(HATIDHURA) P.S - TAMARHAT PIN -783332 DIST- DHUBRI
8: CHINTAMANI DAS
D/O- LATE RAJANI DAS VILL- JAMTOLA P.O- JAMTOLA
P.S - RANGIA PIN -781365 DIST- KAMRUP(RURAL)
9: KALIM ULLAH
S/0- FAKOR UDDIN VILL-SALEHPUR P.O-BARAIGRAM P.S-PATHARKANDI
Page No.# 2/5
PIN-788723 DIST-SRIBHUMI(KARIMGANJ)
10: TAHIR AHMED
S/O-ABDUL MATIN R/O- - VILL- HULASHNAGAR P.O- ANIPUR
P.S- RATABARI PIN-788734 DIST- SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ)
11: MAYURI SARKAR
D/O-AJIT KUMAR SARKAR VILL-BISHKHOWA PART 1
P.O-BISHKHOWA P.S-GOLAKGANJ DIST-DHUBRI (ASSAM) PIN-783334
12: ARJIFA PARBIN
D/O - ASHAN ALI AHMED VILL- KHORAGHAT P/O - BARKANDA P/S -
BAGRIBARI DIST- KOKRAJHAR PIN- 783348
13: INDRAJIT DAS
S/O - PRABIN KUMAR DAS TOWN- SORBHOG WARD NO 4
P.O. - SORBHOG P.S. - SORBHOG DIST- BARPETA PIN - 781317
14: WAHIDUT ZAMAN
S/O- ABDUL KASHEM TOWN- BARPETA ROAD WARD NO 1
P.O- BARPETA ROAD P.S - BARPETA ROAD PIN -781315 DIST- BARPETA
15: BEGUM JOBEDA KHATUN
D/O- LT ABDUR RASID VILL- HATIPOTA PT 2
PO AND PS- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI PIN- 783348
16: TUMPA ROY
D/O- AMULLYA KUMAR ROY VILL-SOUTH TOKRERCHORA PT -2
P.O AND P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI PIN-783334
17: SOLMAN ALOM
S/O-ABDUS SALAM VILL AND PO-LAMAJUAR
PS-BADARPUR DIST-SRIBHUMI(KARIMGANJ) PIN-788701
18: SEKANDER BADSHA
S/O - RAHAM ALI VILL- 2 NO RIVER BLOCK
PO- POCHAR CHAR PS- SOUTH SALMARA DIST- DHUBRI PIN-783127
19: PRONAY KR RAY
S/O- UTTAM KR RAY VILL- DHORARGHAT PT II
P.O- SAHEBGANJ P.S - GAURIPUR PIN -783331 DIST- DHUBRI
20: RINA AHMED
D/O- KASHEM ALI VILLAGE - BHAKUAMARI
P/O- ANANDA BAZAR P/S - SALBARI DIST- BAKSA PIN-781318
21: IMDADULLAH BARBHUIYA
S/O- ALA UDDIN BARBHUIYA VILLAGE- VICHINGCHA PART-2
Page No.# 3/5
BARBHUIYA BHAVAN HOUSE NO-06 GUDAMGHAT ROAD P.O AND P/S--
HAILAKANDI DISTRICT--HAILAKANDI
PIN-- 788155
22: ASRAFUL AHMED
S/O SHAJAMAL AHMED VILL AND P.O. BHERALDI
P.S BARPETA DIST- BARPETA PIN- 781309
23: JAHIDUL ALOM SARKAR
S/O LT MUZAMMEL HUSSAIN SARKAR
VILL- THAGRARPAR PART 1 P.O. KHALIPUR P.O. - DHUBRI DIST- DHUBR
VERSUS
1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
EDUCATION, SECONDARY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECENDORY EDUCATION ASSAM
KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, Advocate.
: Mr. A. Hussain, Advocate.
: Mr. K. Alom, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary)
Department for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
03.09.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary)
Department.
The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.08.2025 of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.4197/2025 and other analogous
writ petitions, who has rejected the claim of the appellants for being considered
for recruitment on the ground that the certificate regarding the basic
Page No.# 4/5
qualification touching on the eligibility of the appellants was acquired only after
the cut-off date for depositing the applications for the purposes of
consideration.
The short issue, which arises in this appeal, is whether the appellants
could have been allowed to cure the defects, especially in view of the scheme of
the Examination, when at the time of verification, the documents had to be
produced regarding eligibility.
The submission raised on behalf of the appellants is not justified.
It is trite that eligibility for participation in a recruitment process has to
be determined with reference to the cut-off date stipulated in the
advertisement, namely, the last date for submission of applications, unless the
rules provide otherwise.
The rationale is 2(two) fold: first, to ensure fairness and a level playing
field by treating all aspirants alike; second, ensure administrative certainty so
that the authority may freeze the field of eligibility on a given date. If candidates
who were ineligible on the last date, are allowed to acquire qualification
subsequently and yet participate, it would amount to conferring upon them an
undue advantage, while others similarly placed but who refrained from applying,
would stand unfairly excluded.
This proposition has been laid down by Supreme Court in Mrs. Rekha
Chaturvedi -Vs- University of Rajasthan & Ors. :: 1993 Supp. (3) SCC
168 and Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. -Vs- Chander Shekhar & Anr. ::
(1997) 4 SCC 18.
Though the appellants have secured better marks than other aspirants
but unfortunately they did not have the eligibility on the last date of submission
of the application form.
Page No.# 5/5
The appellants had applied against an advertisement dated 26.12.2023
issued by the respondents. They were allowed to appear in the Examination
subject to their having the requisite eligibility, which would have been verified at
a later stage.
The appellants were required to have B.Ed. Degree, which they had
acquired only after the last date for submission of the application form on
20.11.2024.
Considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge did not
agree to allow the case of the appellants/writ petitioners.
We do not find any illegality or perversity in the order for us to
interfere.
There is no merit in this appeal, the appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
