Gauhati High Court
Rahul Das vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And 4 Ors on 7 May, 2026
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010034922022
2026:GAU-AS:6377
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1373/2022
RAHUL DAS
R/O- 3 NO. DAKSHINHATI, P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781301.
VERSUS
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND 4 ORS
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG,
BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400051, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
(EMPLOYEE AND SERVICES)
GUWAHATI REFINERY
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-781020
ASSAM
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCE)
GUWAHATI REFINERY
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-781020
ASSAM
4:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HUMAN RESOURCE)
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
GUWAHATI REFINERY
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-781020
ASSAM
5:PRANAB PATHAK
JUNIOR ENGINEERING ASSISTANT
Page No.# 2/16
POWER AND UTILILTY
COOLING TOWER UNIT
GUWAHATI REFINERY
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-781020
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J PATOWARY,
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N DEKA (r-1 to 4), MR R KARIM (r-1 TO 4),MR. B PHUKAN
(r-5),MR A R BAROOAH (r-1 to 4),MR. M GOGOI (r-1 to 4)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
07.05.2026 Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. T. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the IOCL and Mr. B. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.
2. The petitioner in this writ petition is a graduate from Gauhati University, having obtained his degree of Bachelor of Science with a major in Physics in the year 2014. The petitioner also belongs to the class of candidates identified as Other Backward Classes. The writ petition contains a format of certificate supplied by the respondent IOCL to the candidates where the petitioner has been certified to belong to the Backward Class under the relevant notifications of the Government of India, and it has also been certified that he does not belong to the persons or sections included in the creamy layer mentioned in the relevant schedule to the Government of India, DOPT OM dated 08.09.1993. The aforesaid format had been issued by the competent authority on the basis of a Page No.# 3/16 certificate which was earlier issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, after having attained his educational qualifications, had undergone a training course. On successful completion of the training, he was awarded a "National Apprenticeship Certificate" issued by the Directorate General of Training, Government of India, certifying that the petitioner had undergone appropriate training from 12.05.2017 to 11.05.2019 in the designated trade of Boiler Attendant. Another certificate had been issued to the petitioner by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited certifying that the petitioner had completed the 24 months Apprenticeship Training as a Trade Apprentice (Boiler Attendant) under the Apprenticeship Act.
3. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited had floated an advertisement on 25.09.2021 calling for applications, amongst others, for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant - IV (Power and Utility), post code 202. The number of posts shown to be available in IOCL, Guwahati, was 3, out of which two would be available for candidates belonging to the unreserved category, whereas one post was shown to be reserved for candidates belonging to the OBC (Non- Creamy Layer) category. The qualification and experience criteria, given at clause B of the aforesaid advertisement with regard to the post of Junior Engineering Assistant - IV (P & U), required the candidate to possess a three- year's diploma in mechanical or electrical engineering from a recognized institute of the University and Boiler Competency Certificate, with a proviso that in case of non-availability of sufficient number of candidates meeting the prescribed parameters, candidates possessing other qualifications noted in the advertisement itself, including BSc (PCM) with apprenticeship training in boiler trade would also be considered for the said post.
Page No.# 4/16
4. Insofar as the criteria of experience for the aforesaid post are concerned, the advertisement noted that, for candidates possessing Diploma/Metric with ITI (Fitter) and holding a Boiler Competency Certificate or a BSc with boiler apprenticeship, no further experience would be required. The requirements for candidates possessing a diploma were also laid down in the advertisement itself. However, since the same does not concern the issue related to this writ petition, the same are not referred to in this order. The advertisement had also laid down the conditions of the age limit and the relaxation therein for candidates belonging to the SC/ST/OBC (NCL) /PwBD/ExSM. The said clause is reproduced below for ease of reference.
"G. Age limit/Relaxation for candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC(NCL)/PwBD/ExSM:
1. Certificate issued by a Board of Secondary Education for passing Matriculation/Higher Secondary shall be the only acceptable document in support of proof of age.
2. Minimum 18 years and Maximum age shall be 26 years for General candidates as on 30.09.2021.
3. Relaxation in the age upto 5 years for SC/ST and 3 years for OBC (NCL) candidates considered against reserved positions will be allowed.
4. PwBD candidates will be allowed age-relaxation upto 10 years (upto 15 years for SC/ST and upto 13 years for OBC (NCL) candidates), if considered against reserved positions.
5. Relaxation to Ex-servicemen will be allowed as per Govt.
Page No.# 5/16 Guidelines i.e. in case of ExSM, Period of actual military service will be deducted from his actual age and if the resultant age does not exceed the maximum age limit by more than three years, he shall be considered to be fulfiling the age criteria.
6. PwBD/ExSM candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC (NCL) categories shall be eligible for grant of cumulative age relaxation under the categories.
7. Age relaxation of a period equal to minimum years of experience notified against a post shall be allowed.
8. Period of Apprenticeship training (under The Apprentices Act 1961/1973 (as amended)), in an Industry covered under the experience criteria notified in this advt, relevant to a post will be considered for relaxation in age.
9. Further, Period of Apprenticeship training in an industry covered under the experience criteria notified in this advt, relevant to a post may considered as experience. However, in such cases, relaxation towards age shall not be available.
10. Maximum relaxation of one year in age will be given to candidates possessing Boiler Competency Certificate & being considered for the post code 202."
5. The selection methodology, as given in the advertisement, was to include a written test and a skill/proficiency/physical test, termed as the SPPT test. It was a condition of the advertisement itself that Admit Cards for the written test would be issued to all officially eligible candidates on the basis of the details Page No.# 6/16 furnished in the online application form and upon submission of application fees. It was also specified that the candidates would be shortlisted in the ratio of 1:2, that is, 2 candidates for 1 post, on the basis of the performance in the written test, subject to securing minimum qualifying marks in the written test. Such candidates who were shortlisted would then be required to undergo the SPPT test.
6. The petitioner received his call letter for the written test, where he was allotted Roll No. 202049 and was required to appear for the written test to be held on 24.10.2021. The petitioner accordingly appeared in the written test. The list of the candidates shortlisted for the SPPT for recruitment of experienced non-executive personnel in various posts, including the post for which the petitioner had offered his candidature, was published on 11.11.2021. The petitioner noticed that although seven candidates had been shown to be shortlisted to participate in the SPPT, the petitioner's name did not appear in the aforesaid list.
7. In his quest to find out the reasons why he had not been shortlisted, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking to know the marks of the candidates who had appeared in the written test for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P & U) (Post Code 202). The petitioner was supplied the information by a letter dated 10.12.2021, in which it was shown that a candidate bearing Roll No. 202027, who had obtained 73 marks, had been shown to be the finally selected candidate against the OBC within the NCL category.
8. By another application dated 13.12.2021, the petitioner sought to know Page No.# 7/16 the marks obtained by him in the written test. The reply dated 12.01.2022 informed the petitioner that he had achieved 93 marks in the written examination. The petitioner, thereafter, again sought information from the IOCL to know the grounds on the basis of which he had not been selected in the written examination held for the post of JEA (P & U) (Post Code 202) with reference to the advertisement issued.
9. The reply dated 08.02.2022 informed the petitioner that the petitioner had, while applying for the post, submitted his date of birth as 24.02.1992, whereas, as per the age eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement, the candidate should not have attained 26 years of age as of 30.09.2021. It was informed that, as per the available records, the petitioner had applied in the OBC category and was eligible for 3 years' age relaxation, but even after the age relaxation, the candidate was found to be over-aged by 7 months and 6 days. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was declared to be not meeting the eligibility criteria of the selection process.
10. The petitioner's request to know the date of birth of all the candidates who appeared for the SPPT under the Post Code 202 vide his application dated 29.11.2021 was rejected by the IOCL on the ground that the date of birth of the candidates is personal information of the candidates and disclosure was unwarranted under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
11. It is at this stage that the petitioner has approached the Court with the present writ petition, claiming that his candidature had been rejected on an erroneous appreciation of the clauses of the advertisement, inasmuch as, the relaxation which should have been made available to the petitioner because of Page No.# 8/16 the apprenticeship undergone by him had not been taken into account by the respondent authorities and therefore, they had not allowed the further relaxation of 1 year over and above the relaxation of 3 years, which the petitioner deserved since he had applied under the OBC (NCL) category.
12. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to cancel the appointment of the respondent No. 5 as a Junior Engineer Assistant (P & U) under the Guwahati Refinery with further prayers to direct the respondents to grant relaxation in age in terms of clause G (10) of the advertisement dated 25.09.2021, so as to allow him to participate in the selection process on the basis of merit displayed by him.
13. By the Order dated 28.02.2022, this Court had observed that the appointment of the respondent No. 5 would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Notices were also issued by the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2022, and upon service of notice, all the respondents have appeared and are represented.
14. Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portions of Clause G (3) and clause G (10) to submit that a relaxation of three years for OBC (NCL) candidates was allowed, and over and above that, a maximum relaxation of one year in age was also required to be given to candidates possessing Boiler Competency Certificate when being considered for the Post Code 202.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that had such an age relaxation been granted to the petitioner, the petitioner would have had the opportunity to appear in the subsequent tests, namely the SPPT, which was Page No.# 9/16 declared to be qualifying only, since, admittedly, the petitioner had secured marks higher than the person who had been shown to have been finally selected for the post The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2016 passed in WP(C) No. 1307/2016, where this Court had taken into note the stand of the respondent authorities that candidates belonging to the reserved categories would be entitled to an additional age relaxation attributable to the period of apprenticeship training undergone by such candidates, over and above the relaxation available to such candidates on reason of their belonging to a particular reserved category. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it has been the stand of the respondents in the past that candidates who were similarly situated as that of the petitioner would be entitled to relaxations in their age twice, if they fulfill the conditions of Clause G(3) and clause G(10) at the same time.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore submitted that the writ petition deserves to be allowed by directing the respondent authorities to grant a further relaxation of one year in his age in terms of Clause G(10) of the advertisement dated 25.09.2021, and after the grant of such a relaxation, consider his candidature for participation in the further stages in the selection process. The learned counsel has submitted that since the appointment of respondent No. 5 had already been made subject to outcome of the petition and the said respondent is also represented in this Court, no prejudice would be caused to respondent No. 5 in the event that the petitioner is granted the relaxation and allowed to participate in the further proceedings of the selection process and the ultimate selection is concluded on the basis of the inter-se- merits of the candidates.
Page No.# 10/16
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Others, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 1 and has specifically referred to the contents of paragraph 12 of the judgement, which are quoted below:-
"12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful of their training:-
(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court inUnion of India.
v. Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227, would permit this.
(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the service rule concerned. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given.
(4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior."
18. The learned counsel has submitted that, in consonance with the observations of the Apex Court at paragraph 12(3), the petitioner would be Page No.# 11/16 entitled to be granted relaxation twice.
19. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. T. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1-4, namely the IOCL, has submitted that the respondent authorities had filed an affidavit on 27.10.2022, claiming that the petitioner would not be entitled to the relaxation under Clause G (10). In the aforesaid affidavit, a stand was taken that the age relaxation of one year for possessing Boiler Competency Certificate is not over and above any other reservation provided for in Clause G, inasmuch as, Clause G (10) specifically stated that the maximum relaxation would be for one year and the petitioner has already availed relaxation of three years under Clause G (3).
20. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that when it was noticed that the stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition was not in consonance with the stand taken by the respondent authorities in WP(C) 1307/2016, another affidavit dated 16.03.2023 had been filed in this matter, where the respondent authorities had admitted that the candidature of the petitioner was erroneously denied due to certain discrepancies or irregularities in the recruitment process. In the aforesaid affidavit, it was further submitted that on implementation of the recommendation of an internal inquiry conducted by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the IOCL, necessary steps, which could also include termination of respondent No. 5 and a re-selection of the suitable candidates as per procedure from rejected candidates, including the present petitioner, may have to be undertaken. In essence, it is the submission of learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner may be entitled to the one-year relaxation over and above the relaxation granted to him on the basis of his being a candidate from the OBC (NCL) category. However, the prayer of the petitioner to be allowed to Page No.# 12/16 participate in the subsequent stages of the selection process in question may not be feasible at this point of time due to the elapse of time from 2021 and further, since there may have been other candidates who have suffered due to the discrepancy or irregularities in the recruitment process, and those candidates would also deserve a chance to participate in the recruitment process.
21. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 has submitted that an affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has submitted that he was selected and offered appointment to the aforesaid post in the OBC NCL category, although he had not taken any relaxation available to the candidates of the OBC NCL category. Although respondent no 5 also deserved to be considered against the posts available for the unreserved category of candidates, the respondents had offered him appointment against the post reserved for OBC NCL category candidates. He had also joined pursuant to such offer of appointment. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 has submitted that although his appointment had been made subject to the outcome of the writ petition, during the pendency of the writ petition, in an illegal and arbitrary move, he had been terminated from his service unceremoniously, and such termination has been assailed in WP(C) No. 106/2023.
22. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 has submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefits sought to be offered under Clause G (10), since as per clause G (8), the period of apprenticeship training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961/1973 in an industry covered under the experienced criteria notified in the advertisement would be considered for Page No.# 13/16 relaxation in age and as per Clause G (9), period of apprenticeship training in an industry covered under the experience criteria notified in the advertisement relevant to a post could be considered for experience, however, the relaxation towards age would not be available.
23. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has placed reliance on the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 6253/2021, wherein this Court had resorted to a harmonious construction of Clause G (8) and G (9) of the advertisement to come to a conclusion that as the benefit of age relaxation was extended to the petitioner of that case, the apprenticeship training period undergone by the petitioner therein could not have been considered as experience The Court in that case had observed that the petitioner, therefore, could not have been held to have the required experience for candidates to be considered for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Production)(post code 201), in terms of the advertisement. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has prayed for a dismissal of this writ petition.
24. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the Judgments placed.
25. In view of the specific stand taken by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the affidavit dated 16.03.2023 to the extent that the petitioner had been erroneously denied participation in the subsequent stages of the recruitment process due to certain discrepancies and irregularities in the recruitment process, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was required to have been given the additional relaxation of one year in accordance with the provisions of Clause G (10) of the advertisement. In the event that the Page No.# 14/16 petitioner had been given such a relaxation, he would have the opportunity to participate in the SPPT, and thereafter, the candidature of the petitioner would have to be assessed in terms of inter-se-merits with other candidates, who have been called in for the SPPT.
26. In so far as the contention of the respondent No. 5 with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Clause G (10) of the advertisement to the petitioner is concerned, this Court notices that the Order dated 25.11.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 6253/2021 was with reference to the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Production)(Post Code 201), where the requisite experience required "minimum one year of post qualification experience in operation". The present case deals with a different post, that is, the Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P & U)(Post Code 202), where, for the candidates possessing B.Sc with Boiler Apprenticeship, no further experience was required. The Court in that case had dealt with provisions of Clause G (8) and G (9) and did not address Clause G (10).
27. This Court also notices that in the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on 09.10.2023, the respondent authorities have clarified as follows:-
"It is submitted that in light of the above contentions, it is unequivocal and apparent that "Apprenticeship Training in Boiler Trade" as stated in proviso (2) to Clause (B) (1) (II) of the Advertisement and the Certificate dated 19.06.2019 submitted by the Petitioner titled "Trade Apprentice (Boiler Attendant)" are the one and the same for all purposes and for consideration by this Hon'ble Court and any difference therein in the title itself is liable to be ignored by this Hon'ble Court. That the Respondent Page No.# 15/16 craves to refer to the Apprentices Act at the time of hearing, if necessary ".
28. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the objections raised by the respondent No. 5 to the grant of relaxation of one year to the petitioner in terms of Clause G (10) deserve to be rejected and are accordingly rejected.
29. This Court also humbly agrees with the Judgement cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another (Supra).
30. In the circumstances of the case, it is held that the candidature of the petitioner had been erroneously rejected by the respondent authorities due to certain discrepancies and irregularities as admitted by them, thus denying him participation in the stages after the written examination of the recruitment process. The respondent authorities are therefore directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the skill/proficiency/physical test of the recruitment process for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P & U)(Post Code 202) in accordance with his merit after granting the relaxation of one more year to the petitioner in accordance with clause G (10) of the advertisement. In the event he successfully qualifies the SPPT, he shall be further considered for appointment on the basis of his merit in the selection process. The respondents shall endeavour to bring the selection and appointment process to its logical conclusion at the earliest, but in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
31. This Court notices that the respondent No. 5 had been terminated from Page No.# 16/16 his services as informed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and such termination has been assailed in another writ petition pending adjudication before this Court. The marks obtained by the petitioner herein being more than the marks obtained by the respondent No. 5, this Court is of the opinion that in the event the petitioner qualifies the SPPT successfully, the petitioner would stake a better claim to the post in issue on the basis of his merit. Therefore, this Court refrains from commenting upon the correctness of the expectation, if any of the respondent No. 5 to the post to which the petitioner has staked a claim. However, it is made clear that the necessity and legality of terminating the services of the respondent No. 5 is not an issue before this Court in this writ petition and any observations made in this writ petition will not affect the adjudication of the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 5 assailing his termination. The said writ petition would be decided on its own merits.
32. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant