AMARJYOTI SARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
Click here to view full judgement.
Hrishikesh Roy, J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. P.D. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 4 and 6 are represented by Mr. N.J. Khataniar, the learned Standing counsel, Higher Education Deptt. The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) (respondent No.5) is represented by the learned lawyer, Mr. R.K. Talukdar. The contesting litigant Asutosh Kundu (respondent No.7) is represented by Mr. D.P. Chaliha, the learned Senior Counsel.
(2.) The matter pertains to appointment to the post of whole time Lecturer in the Bishnu Ram Medhi Govt. Law College, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as 'the Law College'), in pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.5.2009, issued by the APSC. The selection and appointment of Asutosh Kundu, who was over aged and did not satisfy the age criteria of 21 38 years, as on 1.1.2009, is the focus of challenge in this case. In the select list notified on 19.11.2009 (Annexure-2), the respondent No.7 was placed first in order of merit and the petitioner, who was placed in the 2nd position in the same select list, contends that the over aged candidate could not have been selected without relaxation of the upper age limit, as he was aged 44 years 11 months, as on 1.1.2009.
(3.) Xxx XXX XXX
3.1. When the advertisement was issued on 20.5.2009, the respondent No.7 was serving as a clerk in the office of the Accountant General, Assam. As relaxation of upper age limit under the Govt. O.M. dated 27.3.1980 (Annexure-7), is applicable only for those in the service of the State Government, the petitioner contends that the age relaxation for the clerk in the Accountant General's office is not permissible, under the O.M. dated 27.3.1980 (Annexure-7).
3.2. The petitioner contends that relaxation of the age requirement can be considered only for deserving cases and the respondent No.7, without any teaching background, could not have merited age relaxation for the post of Lecturer in the Law College.
3.3. According to the petitioner neither the Government nor the APSC had ever granted age relaxation for the respondent No.7, in terms of the O.M. dated 27.3.1980, read with the follow up O.M. dated 4.1.1992 (Annexure-8) and accordingly, it is strenuously argued that the selection of the over aged candidate was wholly unmerited.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.