JULIE DAS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & Ors.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEURI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.m. Chhaya HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

23.09.2022 (R.M. Chhaya, CJ.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated

02.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5731/2022, the appellant/original petitioner has preferred this appeal.

2. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal: The appellant/original petitioner is a Ph.D. Degree holder and obtained the said degree from Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat. It is the case of the appellant/original petitioner that she is registered with the Assam Veterinary Council Page No.# 3/6 and is aged 45 years 9 months and 15 days. The record indicates that pursuant to an advertisement being ADVT No. 13/2022 No.59PSC/DR-5/1/2022-23 dated 22.07.2022 issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’ for the sake of brevity) inviting applications for filling up 162 Nos. of posts of Veterinary Officer/Block Veterinary Officer, the appellant/original petitioner applied for the post of Veterinary Officer/Block Veterinary Officer. The said advertisement clearly prescribes that the eligible candidates should fall between the age group of 21 and not more than 38 years as on 01.01.2022. In order to be eligible for the post of Veterinary Officer/Block Veterinary Officer, the appellant also filed a representation to the authorities on 25.08.2022 for age relaxation and extension of the last date of submission of application. It is basically the case of the appellant that she is unemployed and qualified lady and as the upper age limit of the candidates belonging to the OBC category is 41 years on the date of advertisement, the appellant is highly prejudiced. It is also contended that such prescription is highly irrational, illegal and arbitrary. It is also contended that non-consideration of the representation filed by the appellant seeking age relaxation as per the Office Memorandum dated

03.03.2016 and extension of the last date of submission of application is per se irrational, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On such grounds. the appellant/original petitioner approached this Court for a writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Commission to consider the case of the appellant and allow her to participate in the selection process for the post of Veterinary Officer/Block Veterinary Officer under the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department of the State and to extend the last date of submission of application i.e., 26.08.2022. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition and being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

3. Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, senior Standing Counsel, APSC assisted by Ms. P. Sarma; Ms. M.M. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department and Mr. N. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam. Page No.# 4/6

4. Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court through the averments made in the petition as well as the observations made by the learned Single Judge and has contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant is a highly qualified candidate. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge has not examined the aspect as to whether non-mentioning of age relaxation in the advertisement dated 22.07.2022 is discriminatory or not. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the issues raised in the petition. Mr. Deuri in support of his contentions, has relied upon the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5288/2022. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal requires consideration.

5. As against this, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the Commission has opposed the appeal and has contended that as rightly noted by the learned Single Judge, the last date of submission of application was 26.08.2022, whereas the writ petition was filed after the said date. Mr. Mahanta further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed no error and under no circumstance the upper age limit can be increased from 41 years and admittedly even according to the appellant, the appellant is more that 45 years of age. Mr. Mahanta also contended that the facts of WP(C) No. 5288/2022 are different and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the order passed in the said writ petition. Supporting the reasons given by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Mahanta contended that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.

6. Ms. M.M. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department as well as Mr. N. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam have adopted the arguments made by Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the Commission. Page No.# 5/6

7. No other arguments, grounds or contentions have been raised by the learned counsels for the parties.

8. The date of birth of the appellant as mentioned in Paragraph No. 14 of the writ petition is 16.03.1976 and, therefore, as on 01.01.2022, the age of the appellant was 45 years 9 months and 15 days. Thus, admittedly, the appellant has crossed the upper age limit of 41 years for the OBC candidates as prescribed in the advertisement dated 22.07.2022. Only because the appellant is highly qualified and an unemployed lady, the age limit cannot be extended. Every recruitment process is governed by the recruitment rules and the terms, conditions and eligibility as prescribed in the advertisement. As per applicable law the qualification and other eligibility criteria relate back to the date of the advertisement. In the case on hand, admittedly the appellant was overaged as on the date of advertisement. Merely because of filing of representation for extension of the upper age limit and for extension of the last date of filing of application does not give any inherent right in favour of the appellant and the authorities have rightly not considered such prayer made by the appellant. Even the reliance placed on the proceedings of WP(C) No. 5288/2022 is also irrelevant as the said proceedings are pending wherein by an order dated 25.08.2022 a learned Single Judge of this Court has permitted the petitioners of that petition to apply on- line since the last date of submission of online application was 26.08.2022. As per record, the present writ petition was filed on 01.09.2022 i.e. after the last date of submission of application as per the advertisement and on that count also, any order that may be passed in WP(C) No. 5288/2022 would not apply to the present case. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed in Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment that the order passed in WP(C) No. 5288/2022 is before the last date of submission of application in terms of the advertisement dated 22.07.2022. On the grounds that are raised in this appeal, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for. Page No.# 6/6

9. Even at the cost of repetition, it is worthwhile to note that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot alter the eligibility criteria and the age limit prescribed in the advertisement. It is the prerogative of the recruiting agency to carry out the recruitment process strictly in accordance with the Rules and, hence, this Court cannot give the direction as prayed for by the appellant.

10. The appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant