Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 299 (GAU)

SANDIP NATH v. ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

2014-03-12

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. HI Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. RK Talukdar, learned counsel for Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) and Ms. A Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, Govt. of Assam. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to condone the upper age limit of the petitioner to enable him to appear in the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement No. 4/2013, dated 01.08.2013 of the APSC for recruitment to 53 posts of Medical Officer (Ayurvedic), under the Health and Family Welfare (A) Department, Govt. of Assam. Petitioner further seeks quashing of the decision of APSC rejecting his candidature for the said post on the ground of being overaged. Further direction sought for by the petitioner is to allow him to appear in the interview scheduled from 11.03.2014 to 14.03.2014 pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. Petitioner has obtained BAMS degree from Govt. Ayurvedic College at Guwahati and has been registered with the State Council of Indian Medicine, Assam, Guwahati. He has been serving as Medical Officer (Ayur) under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951 in the Dima Hasao Autonomous Council on temporary basis. Such temporary appointment of the petitioner has been extended from time to time. APSC issued advertisement No. 04/2013, dated 01.08.2013, inviting applications from eligible candidates for 53 posts of Medical Officer (Ayurvedic) under the Health and Family Welfare (A) Department. As per the advertisement, a candidate should not be less than 21 years of age and not more than 38 years of age as on 01.01.2013. It was provided that the upper age limit was relaxable for reserved categories of candidates as per existing Rules. 31.08.2013 was the date fixed for submission of applications. Though petitioner had submitted application pursuant to the said advertisement, which was forwarded by the Health & Family Welfare (A) Department to the APSC on 29.08.2013, according to the petitioner, he had also submitted an application on 26.02.2014 before the respondent No. 3 for condonation of his age, as he was over-aged as per the advertisement. However, no decision has been taken on the said application. However, no decision has been taken on the said application. In the meanwhile, APSC in their official website uploaded a list of candidates who had applied for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurvedic) pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.08.2013 and whose applications have been rejected. In the said list, petitioner’s name appeared at Sl. No. 57 and the ground of rejection is shown as being overaged. In the meanwhile, interview, pursuant to the said advertisement has been scheduled from 11.03.2014 to 14.03.2014. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on office memorandum of the Govt. of Assam in the Personnel (B) Department, dated 27.03.1980 and office memorandum dated 04.01.1992 of the same Department to contend that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of upper age relaxation. He, therefore, submits that failure on the part of the respondents to condone the upper age limit in respect of the petitioner is unjust and, therefore, he should be allowed to appear in the interview. Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for APSC and the Health Department. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A conjoint reading of the two office memoranda dated 27.03.1980 and 04.01.1992 would show that the Government has been vested with the power to grant relaxation of upper age limit up to the age of 45 years. However, such relaxation may be allowed in case of those who are in the services of the State Government. The objective behind the two office memoranda and the purpose for relaxation of the upper age limit in matters of recruitment to public service it appears is to ensure a fair deal to a deserving candidate who is otherwise over-aged and, therefore, ineligible or in the public interest. One of these two conditions must be satisfied before the age limit can be relaxed in favour of the individual candidate. The office memorandum dated 27.03.1980 provides that where the direct recruitment is not made through the APSC, the relaxation may be allowed to those candidates also who are not in the services of the State Govt., but in case of recruitment which is made through the APSC, the APSC should be consulted before such relaxation is granted. The procedure for such relaxation is provided. The procedure for such relaxation is provided. The Appointing Authority when approached by a candidate for granting relaxation of the upper age limit, if he is satisfied that the case deserves consideration, he shall refer the case to the APSC to consider the case on merit, notwithstanding the fact that the candidate had exceeded the age limit. Discretion is vested with the APSC to make the final recommendation, whether to relax the upper age limit or not keeping in view the merit of each individual case. Coming to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the advertisement is dated 01.08.2013 and the last date for submission of application was 31.08.2013. In the affidavit sworn in support of the writ petition on 10.03.2014, petitioner has disclosed his age to be about 46 years. In other words, as on 01.01.2013, he would have been around 45 years, thus being clearly over-aged. Not only that, as per the own statement of the petitioner, he had submitted application before the respondent No. 3 only on 26.02.2014 for relaxation of the upper age limit, but there is no relaxation in the upper age limit in respect of the petitioner, who admittedly was overaged at the time of submission of application. Relaxation of the upper age limit in the case of a candidate seeking public employment is not to be granted in a routine manner. No candidate can demand as a matter of right that the upper age limit should be relaxed in his case. As noticed above, such relaxation would be permissible only in the interest of fair dealing or in the public interest. Moreover, the appointing authority must record its satisfaction that an application for relaxation of the upper age limit deserves consideration, which shall then be referred to the APSC for its decision on merit. In the present case, clearly there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in filing the application before the appointing authority for relaxation of the upper age limit, which was filed only on 26.02.2014 on the eve of interview whereas the last date for submission of application was 31.08.2013. In such circumstances, the decision of the APSC to reject the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of being overaged cannot be faulted with. In such circumstances, the decision of the APSC to reject the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of being overaged cannot be faulted with. This Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the aforesaid decision of the APSC which does not suffer from any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.