BODRUL ISLAM CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the decision of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam (respondent 4) in not appointing him to the post of Sub -Inspector of Schools despite his selection for the post by the Selection Committee duly constituted by him.

(2.) In response to the advertisement dated 10.1.2014 issued by the respondent No. 4 inviting applications from candidates amongst Assistant Teachers of provincialized/Government Schools for the posts of Sub -Inspector of Schools, the petitioner, who is otherwise qualified, applied for one of the 128 posts so advertised. The advertisement stipulated that the candidate, among others, must have B.T./B.Ed. degree with at least 5 years of teaching experience in any provincialized/government schools with the upper age limit up to 40 years as on 1.1.2014 for general candidates. As the petitioner had already attained 47 years on the date of the advertisement, he submitted an application to the respondent No. 2 on 1.2.2014 seeking condonation of his overage to enable him to participate in the ongoing recruitment process for the said posts. The respondent No. 2 forwarded his application to the respondent No. 4 for doing the needful vide the letter dated 9.5.2014. In the meantime, he was allowed to and duly appeared before the Interview Board on 20.10.2014. When the final select list of 112 candidates was published on 23.7.2015, the name of the petitioner found a place at Serial No. 51. However, in the notification dated 30.7.2015 issued by the respondent No. 4, 107 out of 112 candidates were appointed leaving out the petitioner and 4 other candidates. On enquiry, he found that he was not appointed for the post on the ground that he found to be overage on the date of the said advertisement. As he had already submitted his representation for condoning his overage on 1.2.2014 to the respondent No. 2, who in turn, forwarded the same to the respondent No. 4 in time and was allowed to participate in the recruitment process, he was surprised by this whimsical decision. As he was denied of the appointment solely on the ground of his overage and the issue involved in the writ petition can be disposed of law points only, no affidavit -in -opposition was called for from the respondent authorities.

(3.) Both Mr. P.D. Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. N. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department, Assam, have been heard at length. Annexure -2 is a copy of the application of the petitioner addressed to the respondent No. 2 for condoning his overage. Annexure -3 is a copy of the letter dated 9.5.2014 of the Under -Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department, forwarding the application of the petitioner to the respondent No. 4 requesting the latter to follow the instruction contained in the Office Memorandum of the Government dated 4.1.1992. The said Office Memorandum evidently permits relaxation of age up to the age of 45 instead of 40 years. Obviously, the application of the petitioner for overage condonation could not have been allowed in the face of the amended permissible upper limit of 45 years. However, the respondent authorities did not reject the application of the petitioner and rather permitted him to participate in the recruitment process by appearing before the Interview Board on 20.12.2014, nay, he was not even selected for the post. These are undisputed facts on record.