BULBULI BORTHAKUR Vs. ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the recommendation in favour of respondent No. 3 by the Assam Public Service Commission in its letter dated 3rd September, 1993 (Annexure-B) for the post of Grade-IV of the Assam Legal Service and for directing the Government of Assam, Judicial Department to appoint the petitioner to the said post.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition is that by an advertisement published on 24th Sept'92, the Judicial Department of Govt of Assam invited applications for two posts in Grade-IV of the Assam Legal Service and in the said advertisement the qualification for the said post was as follows : Qualification : A candidate must be an Advocate enrolled under the Advocates' Act, 1961, who has been practising as such for at least 3 years standing, as a Chief Language Officer of the Legislative Deptt. holding a degree in Law and having 3 years experience as such officer or with 2 years experience as such officer if he has previous experience as an Advocate for at least 3 years, or a Language Officer of the Legislative Deptt. holding a Degree in Law and having 5 years experience as such officer or two years experience as Language Officer if he has previous experience as an Advocate for at least 4 years. Amongst others the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 applied for the aforesaid posts and 28 candidates including the petitioner and the respondent No.3 appeared in interview conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission (in short the APSC) on 30.7.93 and the APSC in its letter dated 3rd Sept'93 recommended Shri P. Kalita and the respondent No.3 for appointment to the said two posts of Grade-IV of the Assam Legal Service. In the said letter dated 3.9.94 the petitioner and one Munin Ch. Baruah were placed in the waiting list in order of preference.

(3.) The petitioner's case in this writ petition is that as per the aforesaid advertisement an Advocate who has been practising for atleast 3 years is eligible for being considered for appointment, but the respondent No.3 has not been practising as an Advocate for the period of 3 years, but has been serving under the Assam Financial Corporation, Guwahati since August, 1993. Accordingly his name should not be have been recommended at all for the second post of Grade-IV, Assam Legal Service and the petitioner being in the 1st position of the waiting list as recommended by the Assam Public Service Commission, is entitled to be considered for appointment to the said post by the State Government. By a representation dated 2nd October, 1993 (Annexure-C) the petitioner brought this fact about the ineligibility of the respondent No.3 to the notice of the Chief Minister of Assam and requested him to cancel the selection of the respondent No.3 and to consider her case but the said representation did not yield any results. Hence this writ petition.