High Court · 2012

We have heard Mr Goswami, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr D Sa ikia, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam for the respondent State. The applicants as writ petitioners have approached this Court vide the a forestated writ proceedings in essence questioning the decision of the State res pondents prescribing a ceiling on the upper age limit of 50 years as a condition of eligibility for participation in the selection process for appointment to th e post of Principal in the provincialised Colleges of the State. Apart from ques tioning the advertisement setting out the above norm along with the other condit ions of eligibility, the applicants have impugned as well the vires of Rule 8 of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010 adopting Rule 7(A)( ii)(a) of the Assam Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2009 ordaining the maxi mum age of 50 years for the post of Principal of such colleges. Dilation on the factual aspects in details is inessential for the limite d purpose in hand. Suffice it to mention that the applicants are presently servi ng as Associate Professors in the aforementioned Colleges and claim to be qualif ied to be appointed as a Principal of such provincialised institutions of the St ate under the relevant University Grants Commission Regulations, as amended till date. An advertisement was issued on 7.10.2007 for filling up 51 number of pos ts of Principal and the applicants being eligible in terms of the criteria set o ut therein applied to the State Selection Board, Assam for their empanelment. Th e upper age limit of the candidates was, in the said advertisement, fixed at 55 years for the posts. The select list published on 13.7.2009 and containing the n ames of 51 candidates in order of merit was subjected to challenge before this C ourt and was eventually annulled by a Division Bench by its judgment and order d ated 23.9.2011. Meanwhile, the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules , 2010 had been enforced and in terms of Rule 8 thereof, the upper age limit for the post of Principal as prescribed for the corresponding grades in the Governm ent Colleges was adopted with effect from 22.11.2010. It was thereafter that com munications were issued to the authorities of the Colleges involved to issue adv ertisement for the post of regular Principal afresh by mandating the upper age l imit to be 50 years. In terms thereof, the Governing Bodies of the colleges invo lved issued advertisement on 30.11.2011 and 1.12.2011 respectively incorporating this norm of modified upper age limit. As alleged by the applicant in MC 1700/2012, the Director of Higher Education, Assam even indicated dissolution of the Governing Body of the Ratnapith College in the event of its failure to complete the process within a short time. By the official communication/ letter dated 23.5.2012 issued by the President, Ratnapit h College, the date of interview in the process has been fixed on 15.6.2012. Mr Goswami has argued that as vacancies in the post of Principal in the Colleges had admittedly occurred at a point of time prior to the enforcement of the impu gned Rules and the new UGC Regulations, the process for filling up the same esse ntially has to be in accordance with the law as well as the procedure prevalent then and, thus, the imposition of the new norm of the upper age limit of 50 year s is per se null and void. The requirement of 50 years as the upper age limit ha ving been introduced only with effect from 20.11.2010, the same by no means can be insisted to be applied in a process for filling up vacancies occurring prior thereto. That such a prescription and/or insistence is also in violation of the letter and spirit of the judgment dated 23.9.2011 rendered in WA 227/2009 and WP (C) 3080/2009 has been emphasized. Mr Goswami has, thus, pleaded that in the abo ve factual premise even if the State/ College authorities are permitted to furth er the selection process, an appropriate order ought to be passed to restrain th em from declaring the results thereof. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam has submitted that the writ petition h aving been fixed for final hearing on 2.8.2012, no interference of any kind with the on-going selection process in the Colleges involved would be advisable. Poi nting out that out of the 86 provincialised Colleges of the State in which ad-ho c arrangement of Principalship had been continuing since long, in 73 such instit utions regular appointments to the said posts acting on the criteria of the uppe r age limit of 50 years had been made following the completion of the processes pertaining thereto, Mr Saikia has urged that no intervention by way of any inter im measure is warranted. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the m aterials on record, we are of the view that it would be inexpedient at this stag e to grant any interim relief as sought for. Noticeably, this Court in response to an identical prayer made in WP(C) No. 6289 /2011 and in other writ proceedings involving the same challenges had observed t hat the impugned selection processes if taken to their logical end would abide b y the decision rendered therein. Having regard to the contentious issues raised and the advanced stage of the on-going exercise, we are disinclined to mark any departure. That the pleadings of the parties in the writ petitions involved are complete an d that these are fixed for final hearing on 2.8.2012 is also a factor weighing a gainst grant of the interim relief as sought for. These applications are, therefore, closed as well on the note that the selection processes, if pending disposal of the connected writ proceedings are completed, the same would be subject to the decisions recorded therein.