LAWS(GAU)-2020-3-170

ARUP GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On March 18, 2020
Arup Goswami Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. AK Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C Barua, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent APSC, Mr. D Nath, learned additional senior Government Advocate for the Fisheries Department and Mr. AK Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 in the Personnel (B) Department.

(2.) The petitioners having completed their B.F.Sc Degree from the College of Fisheries, Raha, Assam under the Assam Agriculture University, Jorhat, had offered their candidature to the advertisement No.08/2019 dated 30.12.2019 of the respondent Assam Public Service Commission (in short APSC). The advertisement was for filling up 12 numbers of posts of Fisheries Development Officer and Allied Cadre under the Fisheries Department. In the advertisement, it was provided that the candidate should not be less than 21 years of age and not more than 38 years as on 01.01.2019. But admittedly, the petitioners were over aged being beyond 38 years of age as on 01.01.2019. Accordingly, the petitioners approached the authorities under the Fisheries Department for a suitable relaxation of their upper age. In response thereof, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Fisheries Department made a communication dated 24.01.2020 to the Secretary, APSC. In the said communication, upon a due consideration of the representations of the petitioners for a relaxation of the upper age, it was provided as under:-

(3.) A reading of the above extracted portion of the communication of the Fisheries Department makes it discernible that the Fisheries Department was of the view that the petitioners had gathered sufficient experience in the activities of the department and therefore, the department feels it desirable that they would serve the public interest of the department, if selected on merit. Accordingly, the APSC was requested to accept their applications and make a final recommendation in terms of an Office Memorandum dated 27.03.1980. But in response thereof, the APSC issued a list of candidates whose applications were rejected wherein the names of the petitioners finds place at Sl No.11 and 12 respectively and the reasons for their rejection were stated to be over age. In other words, it has to be inferred that the APSC had rejected the relaxation of the age of the petitioners and therefore, their names appeared in the list of rejected candidates.