Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 585 (GAU)

SANDIP NATH v. ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

2014-06-02

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT : - A.M. Sapre, J. Heard Mr. A. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. A. Deka, Mr. R. K. Talukdar and Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.1376/2014 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 12.03.2014 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. Heard on Misc. Case No.1376 of 2014. This is an application made by the applicant/ appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. According to the applicant/appellant, the delay is of 22 days. We have gone through the cause stated in the application duly supported by an affidavit. In our opinion, it constitutes a bonafide and sufficient cause for the purpose of condoning the delay within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The condonation of delay advances cause of justice whereas converse defeats the cause of doing substantial justice. There is no deliberate delay on the part of the appellants in filing the appeal and, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal deservers to be condoned on the grounds stated in the application. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, Misc. Case No.1376 of 2014 is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and declined to grant relief to the appellant. So the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition? Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The appellant pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) applied for the post of Medical Officer (Aurvedic). The last date for submission of the form was 31.8.2013. One of the requirements for submission of the form was that the appellant should not be below 21 years and not above 38 years. There was however provision to give relaxation of age up to 45 in appropriate case. The appellant was admittedly overaged on the date of submission of his form as he was around 46 years. In no case, therefore he was eligible to claim the benefit of provision, which had provided for age relaxation. There was however provision to give relaxation of age up to 45 in appropriate case. The appellant was admittedly overaged on the date of submission of his form as he was around 46 years. In no case, therefore he was eligible to claim the benefit of provision, which had provided for age relaxation. That apart, the appellant did not apply for grant of age relaxation while submitting his application before 31.8.2013 but applied on 26.2.2014. It is this request, which was declined by APSC and later by the writ court by dismissing the writ petition, which gave rise to filing of this appeal seeking a mandamus against the APSC to grant relaxation to the appellant to enable him to appear in the selection process for the post of Medical Officer. As mentioned above, the writ court rightly dismissed the writ petition and declined to grant the relief to the appellant and hence this appeal. In the first place, the appellant was not eligible to claim the benefit of provision relating to grant of age relaxation for the reason that it was available only to those candidates who were between the age group of 38 to 45. So far as the appellant was concerned, he was above 46 and hence was not entitled o claim the benefit of age relaxation. Secondly, the appellant failed to apply for grant of age relaxation within time because he could apply for such benefit on or before 31.8.2013 that being the last date for submission of the form whereas he applied on 26.2.2014 which was much after 31.8.2013 and lastly a provision for grant of such age relaxation had to be used sparingly and exceptional cases by assigning reasons as to why it is being invoked in favour of particular candidate though he crossed the age bar prescribed for applying for the post. No such exceptional case was made out in favour of the appellant and hence he was rightly not given the benefit of age relaxation while applying to the post of Medical Officer by APSC. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit. It thus fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No cost.