MAJAHAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the appointment of the respondent No. 7 to the post of Junior Assistant in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PHED, Government of Assam, North Lakhimpur Division, Japisaijiya (respondent 5). The controversy arose on the following facts and circumstances. In response to the advertisement dated 1 -12 -2012 issued by the respondent No. 5 inviting applications from interested candidates for filling up one post of Junior Assistant in his office, the petitioner applied for the same. He is eligible for the post of Junior Assistant. He was subsequently called for and took part in the written examination and qualified for the interview scheduled for 27 -6 -2013. He accordingly appeared before the Selection Committee and is under the impression that he did quite well in the interview as he was able to correctly answer all the questions asked by the Committee. On the basis of his performance, he had been legitimately expecting that he would make it to the final select list. In the interview, three other persons, namely, (1) Shri Rubul Borah, (2) Shri Lalon Pathori and (3) Shri Pranjal Panging had also appeared in the interview. When no result of his interview was made for sometime, he made an enquiry and found to his dismay that the respondent No. 7 had been selected and appointed to the post of Junior Assistant. According to the petitioner, no select list was ever published by the respondent authorities. After facing considerable difficulties, he managed to obtain the result of the written test of both Junior Assistant and Section Assistant declared by the Selection Committee vide the Memorandum dated 25 -6 -2013 and the total marks obtained by him and the three other candidates. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the following are the marks obtained by him and the three other candidates:

(2.) THUS , according to the petitioner, having scored 98.10 marks, he secured the highest marks amongst the four candidates in the selection process, and is, accordingly, entitled to appointment to the post of Junior Assistant. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent authorities have acted discriminatorily, arbitrarily and illegally appointed the respondent No. 7 by overlooking him. The appointment order dated 29 -6 -2013, which was obtained by him subsequently, reveals that the respondent No. 7 was appointed to the said post two days after the interview was held. He thereafter made a representation to the respondent No. 5 projecting his grievances and pray for his appointment to the said post, but the same has not been attended to till now. He is, therefore, compelled to file this writ petition for appropriate orders.

(3.) IN so far as the issue of overage is concerned, the petitioner in his reply affidavit clarifies that as he was conscious of this fact, he had also, at the time of submission of the application for the appointment, filed the representation dated 12 -12 -2012 to the respondent No. 4 disclosing the said information and prayed for relaxing the upper age limit for the post and allowing him to participate in the selection process. Though the respondent No. 4 and 5 evidently knew of his being overage, they allowed him to participate in the selection process. In view of this, the petitioner has along been under the impression that his overage was deemed to have been condoned, which cannot now be repudiated by them: the respondent authorities are now estopped from disqualifying him. Moreover, according to the petitioner, there is a provision in the Office Memorandum dated 4 -1 -1992 permitting relaxation of the upper age limit up to the age of 45 years from 40.