MANJURA MOHAN KALITA Vs. ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an advertisement of the Assam Public Service Commission published in the newspaper on Sunday, the 14th January, 2001, applications were invited for the post of Director of Agriculture under the Agriculture Department of Government of Assam. In the said advertisement, it was, inter alia, stipulated that the candidates must have experience in administration of agriculture in a senior post at least for 8 years, not below the equivalent rank of Deputy Director of Agriculture. The petitioner who initially joined as Senior Research Assistant in the year 1972 in Assam Agriculture University, Jorhat, and thereafter, worked there as Associate Director of Students Welfare with effect from 9.9.1988, and who has been working there as the Director of Students Welfare since 15.10.1998 applied for the said post of Director of Agriculture. But the Assam Public Service Commission, (for short, "the APSC"), did not call the petitioner for selection and interview for the said post of Director of Agriculture on the ground that the petitioner did not have the experience in administration of agriculture in a senior post at least for 8 years not below the equivalent rank of Deputy Director of Agriculture. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer to quash the said advertisement dated 14th January, 2001, published by the APSC, and for directing the respondents to call the petitioner for selection and interview by the APSC for the said post of Director of Agriculture.

(2.) On 4.6.2001, this Court while issuing notice passed an interim order directing the APSC, and respondents-2 and 3 to allow the petitioner to participate in the interview for selection to the post of Director of Agriculture, but observed in the said order dated 4.6.2001 that the participation of the petitioner in the interview and the result thereof would abide by such further order that the Court may pass in the writ petition. The APSC has informed the Court through its counsel Mr T.C. Chutia that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has been allowed to participate in the interview and in fact the petitioner has been placed in the first position in the select list for the post of Director of Agriculture. The question that remains to be decided in this writ petition is whether the petitioner had experience in administration of agriculture in a senior post at least for 8 years as stipulated in the rules and the advertisement.

(3.) Mr A.C. Borbora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Assam Agricultural Service Rules, 1980, (for short), "the Rules, 1980") and in particular Schedule-II thereof provides that for the post of Director of Agriculture, a candidate must have experience in administration of agriculture in a senior post at least for 8 years. The said provision in Schedule-II to the Rules, 1980, does not say that such experience in administration off agriculture should be in the rank of Deputy Director of Agriculture. Yet, in the advertisement, it has been stipulated that such experience in administration of agriculture should be in the rank of Deputy Director of Agriculture. The advertisement was, therefore, contrary to the Rules, 1980. Alternatively, Mr Borbora submitted that in any case the petitioner has worked as Associate Director of Students Welfare with effect from 9.9.1988 and thereafter as the Director of Students Welfare with effect from 15.10 1998, and the scale of pay of the Associate Director of Assam Agriculture University is Rs.16,400/- Rs.25,000/- whereas the scale of pay of the Deputy Director of Agriculture is Rs.8,001/- Rs.13,025/-. Hence, the experience of the petitioner was above the rank of Deputy Director of Agriculture. Mr Borbora referred to the certificate of the Vice-Chancellor of Assam Agriculture University, Jorhat, annexed as Annexure-' A' to the writ petition, certifying that the petitioner in his capacity as Associate Director of Students Welfare was functioning as a very competent administrator. He also referred to Annexure-A(1) to the writ petition which is a certificate given by the Registrar of Assam Agriculture University to the effect that the service in the capacity of Associate Director of Students Welfare was considered as administrative experience in Agriculture. He argued by referring to the provisions of the Assam Agricultural University Act, 1968, and in particular Section 17 thereof to show that the Director and the Associate Directors are officers of the University and hold administrative posts. He also referred to notification dated 4.11.1992 annexed to the affidavit-in-reply of the petitioner as Annexure-1 which goes to show that administrative powers have been delegated to Associate Director of Students Welfare, Assam Agriculture University, Jorhat. Similarly, he referred to notification dated 5.8.1997 annexed to the affidavit-in-reply of the petitioner as Annxure-5(b) to show that qualifications for the post of Director of Students Welfare which the petitioner is now holding includes administrative experience in Agriculture as well as other qualities, such as, initiative, leadership and capacity to plan, organise, co-ordinate and supervise students' co-curricular and extra curricular, cultural and different welfare activities, etc. According to Mr Borbora, the materials annexed to the writ petition as well as to the affidavit-in-reply of the petitioner would go to show that the petitioner had the requisite 8 years experience in administration of agriculture and was therefore eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Director of Agriculture under the Rules, 1980.