PHRANGSHAI HYNNIEWTA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Director of Higher and Technical Education, Meghalaya, wherein it has been stated that the writ petitioner was appointed under regulation 3 (f) of the Meghalaya Public Service Commission Regulations and that his last extension of 4 months was made on 16/5/2023 and as such, as per records available, he is no longer in employment. In the affidavit, it is given that the decision to fix the eligible age is a policy decision and as such, the same was given in the advertisement. As such, the learned AAG submits that there is no case made out for interference at this stage as the last date for filing of the application is on 19/3/2025.

(2.) Mr. S.P.Mahanta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. L.M.Sangma, learned counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner has vehemently submitted that the instant case is a fit case for this Court to pass directions in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, as grave injustice has been caused to the writ petitioner who has been serving for the last 9 years in the post as Assistant Professor Geography, and in fact he submits the continuation for the extension of his service is still under process before the Meghalaya Public Service Commission. He further submits that the writ petitioner had legitimate expectation of being able to sit for the selection, but due to the age bar, his hope will not be able to be realized. He therefore prays that some concession be given by this Court to allow him to at least put in his application before the last date.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is undisputed that the advertisement has prescribed the upper age limit as given in para 3 thereof is 32 years as on 1/1/2025 with the usual relaxation of 5 years for SC/ST candidates. It has also been provided therein that there is no age limit for candidates who are already in Meghalaya Government service provided they entered services within the prescribed age limit. The petitioner as on 1/1/2025 is overaged by 1 month 4 days, and as such, in view of the prescription given in the advertisement was no longer eligible to apply for the same. As can be gathered from the writ petition itself, the said post against which the writ petitioner had been serving, has been advertised for the first time after 9 years and as such, it would not have been possible for the writ petitioner to apply when he was within age. Apart from the age criteria, the petitioner is eligible in all respects and as such if he was within age, would have been a suitable candidate for consideration.