Gauhati High Court
Dr. Julie Das vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 2 September, 2022
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010176392022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5731/2022
DR. JULIE DAS
H.NO. 32, BYE-LANE NO. 3, JAWAHAR NAGAR, GANESH MANDIR PATH,
P.O. KHANAPARA, P.S. DISPUR, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM- 781022
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, JANATA BHAVAN,
DISPUR, GHY-06
2:COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT.
ASSAM SECRETARIAT (CIVIL)
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PERSONNEL (B) DEPTT.
JANATA BHAVAN
DISPUR
GHY-06
4:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
JAWAHAR NAGAR
KHANAPARA
GHY-22
5:THE SECRETARY
ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
JAWAHAR NAGAR
KHANAPARA
Page No.# 2/4
GHY-22
6:DY. SECRETARY
ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
JAWAHAR NAGAR
SIX-MILE
KHANAPARA
GHY-2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEURI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
02.09.2022 Heard Mr. T Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is desirous of participating in the selection process for filling up of vacant post of Veterinary Officer/Block Veterinary Officer under the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Assam in terms of the advertisement dated 22.07.2022. However, the petitioner is 45 years of age, while the maximum age requirement of a candidate, in terms of Clause-6 of the advertisement dated 22.07.2022, is 38 years as on 01.01.2022. Further, relaxation of 5 years is given to SC/ST candidates up-to 43 years and 3 years relaxation is for OBC/MOBC i.e., up-to 41 years.
3. Shri Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in a similar case, i.e., WP(C)/5288/2022, had allowed overaged candidates to participate in the Page No.# 3/4 selection process in pursuant to the same advertisement dated 22.07.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner, accordingly submits that the petitioner herein, should also be allowed to participate in the selection process.
4. Mr. D Bora, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1 and 3; Ms. MM Katakey, learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 2 and Mr. PP Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6.
5. The learned counsels for the respondents submit that the last date for submission of the online application was 26.08.2022, while the present writ petition has been filed on 01.09.2022. They also submit that the order dated 23.08.2022, passed in WP(C)/5288/2022, would not apply to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, the order, passed in WP(C)/5288/2022, had issued prior to the last date of submission of the online application.
6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The facts of the case clearly show that the petitioner is overaged for taking part in the selection process. Further, the order dated 23.08.2022, passed in WP(C)/5288/2022, cannot come to the aid of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the order had been passed prior to the last date of submission of application, in terms of the advertisement dated 22.07.2022.
8. In the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court after the closing of the last date of filing of application. The fact situations in WP(C)/5288/2022 are different and accordingly, the order, passed in WP(C)/5288/2022, cannot be used as a precedent for this case.
Page No.# 4/4
9. For the reasons, stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant