IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURTghconline.gov.in/Judgment/WPC8452014.pdfWP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 1 of 48 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH

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,


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,


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,

.


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.


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,


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.


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,


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. -


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,


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,


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.


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.


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.


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:


2. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Personnel (B), Assam Secretariat, 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.


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


to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.


3. Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Agriculture Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.


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.


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:






5. Assam Public Service Commission,


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.



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,


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:








6. Secretary, Assam Public Service

Commission, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.



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:











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.


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,


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


to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.





5. Assam Public Service Commission, Represented by its Chairman, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.




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


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


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


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.


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-


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.”


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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

Documents

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURTghconline.gov.in/Judgment/WPC8452014.pdfWP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 Page 1 of 48 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH