Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1108 (GAU)

Abdul Jalil Barbhuiya v. State of Assam

2018-07-26

LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

body2018
ORDER : LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, J. 1. All these writ petitions, having similar cause of action and relief sought being similar in nature, are disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 1215/2018 and WP(C) 1283/2018, Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 1100/2018 and WP(C) 2221/2018, Mr. N.H. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 1144/2018 and WP(C) 1313/2018, Mr. S. S.S. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 1221/2018 and Mr. S. Zaman, learned counsel for the petitioner WP(C) 2358/2018. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing for all the respondents. 3. The respondent No. 2/Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, issued an advertisement dated 22.07.2017 for filling up 188 Nos. posts of Veterinary Field Assistant (VFA, in short) under the Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, Assam. In the said advertisement, the age limit prescribed was not less than 21 years and more than 43 years of age as on 01.01.2017. All the petitioners have completed the certificate course of Elementary Knowledge of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Science and, therefore, they were otherwise qualified to apply for the post of VFA. However, due to the age limit prescribed in the advertisement dated 22.07.2017, the petitioners could not apply inasmuch as they were all over-aged. Therefore, the petitioners filed WP(C) 4736/2017 and WP(C) 4816/2017, which were disposed of by different orders dated 07.08.2017 and 09.08.2017 respectively by this Court by directing the Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department to consider the representations of the petitioners for relaxation of the upper age limit at par with other candidates so as to enable them to participate in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.07.2017. Thereafter, different orders were passed by the respondent No. 2 in respect of different petitioners, allowing age relaxation and permitting to participate in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.07.2017. The grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is that despite relaxation given by the respondent No. 2, none of the petitioners has been called for the viva-voce test, which commenced on 26.02.2018 except 23 candidates, who were within the age limit in terms of the advertisement dated 22.07.2017. 4. The respondent Nos. The grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is that despite relaxation given by the respondent No. 2, none of the petitioners has been called for the viva-voce test, which commenced on 26.02.2018 except 23 candidates, who were within the age limit in terms of the advertisement dated 22.07.2017. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a common affidavit in WP(C) 1100/2018, wherein at paragraph 9, it is stated that the respondent No. 2, while granting the age relaxation, did not take the approval of the Government of Assam as required under Section 27 of the Assam Animal Husbandry and Veterinary (Subordinate Service) Rules, 2002 (in short, Rules of 2002). 5. Mr. D. Nath, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, therefore, submits that the reasons for not inviting the petitioners to the viva-voce test, which commenced on 26.2.2018, was for the reasons that such age relaxation to the petitioners were granted without the approval of the Government. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is to be noted that this Court had passed the orders dated 07.08.2017 and 09.08.2017 respectively in WP(C) 4736/2017 and WP(C) 4816/2017 directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the representations of the petitioners for relaxation of upper age limit at the earliest. Rule 27 of the Rules of 2002 has also been considered. The directions having already been passed by this Court to the respondent No. 2 for consideration of the petitioners for relaxation of age, it was incumbent on the part of the respondent No. 2 to have forwarded the matter to the Government in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 2002. However, it appears that the respondent No. 2 had proceeded to give the relaxation of age to the petitioners to appear in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.07.2017. 8. This being the only impediment for not calling the petitioners to the viva-voce test which commenced on 26.02.2018, this Court is of the considered opinion that such procedural lapse can be rectified by the respondents before conclusion of the selection process considering the fact that this Court had already passed the interim order on 26.2.18 directing the respondents not to finalize the selection without the leave of this Court. 9. 9. In that view of the matter, the respondent No. 2 is directed to place the case of the petitioners for relaxation of age before the Government in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 2002 within a period of 1 (one) week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the competent authority should consider the age relaxation of the petitioners in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 2002 within a period of 2 (two) weeks thereafter. Thereafter, the respondents shall ensure that the petitioners are invited to the viva-voce test for making selection to the post of VFA and publish the select list in order of merit. 10. With the above observations and directions, this writ petitions are disposed of.