Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 2 September, 2022

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                              Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010175552022




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/5737/2022

         JAYANTA MALAKAR AND ANR
         (SC),
         SON OF LATE UMA MALAKAR,
         RESIDENT OF VILL. SATDOLA,
         P.O.- HAJO,
         P.S.- HAJO,
         DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM,
         PIN- 781102.

         2: NANDESWAR HANSU
          (STH)

         SON OF SADANANDA HANSU

         RESIDENT OF VILL. HAWRAGHAT

         P.O. AND P.S.- HAWRAGHAT

         DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG
         ASSAM
         PIN- 782481

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SPL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS (R) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

         2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-06.

         3:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
                                                                       Page No.# 2/3

             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
             JAWAHAR NAGAR
             KHANAPARA
             GUWAHATI-22.

            4:THE SECRETARY
            THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
             JAWAHAR NAGAR
             KHANAPARA
             GUWAHATI-22.

            5:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
            THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
             JAWAHAR NAGAR
             KHANAPARA
             GUWAHATI-22

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR G PATHAK

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P W D




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                          ORDER

02.09.2022 Heard Mr. G. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the petitioners being desirous of taking part in the selection process for appointment to the vacant post in the PWD, in pursuant to the Advertisement No. 06/2019 dated 19.11.2019, made an appeal to the State respondents for relaxation of their age. The State respondents thereafter relaxed the overage of the petitioners, after obtaining the approval of the Cabinet on 21.03.2020. The petitioners were thereafter allowed to participate in the written examination. However, they were not allowed to take part in the interview, on the ground that the maximum age limit for allowing a candidate to take part in the selection Page No.# 3/3 process under the State Government was 44 years. The petitioners being 49 & 53 years of age, they were debarred from further participating in the selection process.

Issue Notice returnable in 4 (four) weeks.

Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 while Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2.

The petitioners having been allowed to participate in the written test and as there is nothing to show that there was no relaxation of the petitioners' overage by the State respondents, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should be allowed to take part in the selection process, in pursuant to the Advertisement No. 06/2019 dated 19.11.2019. Accordingly, the petitioners should be allowed to participate in the selection process, i.e. interview. However, the results of the petitioners should not be declared, if they are selected in the selection process.

List the matter after four weeks.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant