MAJAM ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-12-43
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on December 15,2018

Majam Ali Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Assam And 5 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. S Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department and Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. None appears for the respondent No.5.
(2.) An employment notice dated 20.01.2006 was issued by the Headmaster of Ambari Kortimari ME Madrassa, wherein a condition was imposed that the intending candidates must be aged between 18 and 36 years as on 01.01.2006. Pursuant to the said selection, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.2 in order of merit and the respondent No.6 was at Serial No.1. Accordingly, by the order dated 03.01.2017, the respondent No.6 was appointed. The appointment of the respondent No.6 has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that as on 01.01.2006, as provided in the advertisement, he was beyond the age of 36 years and as such, was not even qualified to offer his candidature.
(3.) Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 refers to a communication dated 16.12.2005 of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, which pertains to filling up the vacant post of Chowkidar in the Government Lower Primary/Upper Primary Schools. By requiring the appropriate authority to initiate the selection process, the said communication also contains a sample advertisement by following which the advertisements are to be published. In the communication dated 16.12.2005, a sample employment notice was also enclosed, which provided that the advertisement be made in the format indicated therein. In the format that was enclosed, it was provided that the candidate must be aged between 18 and 36 years as on 01.01.2005. Accordingly, Mr. Dutta submits that the employment notice pursuant to which the selection process was undertaken, must be read to have provided that the candidate must be between 18 and 36 years as on 01.01.2005 and if it is so, the respondent No.6 was within the prescribed age limit.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.