ANITA CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T. N. Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State authorities are represented by Mr. B. Kaushik, the learned Standing Counsel of the Higher Education deptt. but he submits that Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Addl. Advocate General is to advance the argument and he has no instruction to make any submission in the matter.

(2.) Today is a hearing day and this case is being argued since morning and only after conclusion of the hearing from the petitioner's side, the respondents' lawyer have prayed for adjournment on the ground that the Addl. A.G. is busy in another court. The request for accommodation is abruptly made and since this bench is not the regular D.B. roster, the adjournment of the case will cause difficulties. However, since pleadings are exchanged, we will try to deal with the stand of the State with the assistance of the departmental lawyer.

(3.) The petitioner is serving as a Research Officer (R.O) in the Directorate of Historical and Antiquarian Studies (hereinafter referred to as "the Directorate") and has re-approached the court but this time, to challenge the vires of Rule 5 of the Directorate of Historical and Antiquarian Studies (Gazetted) Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2010 Rules'). According to the petitioner, the 2010 Rules is ultra-vires the constitution as this impairs her legitimate right to be considered for promotion to the post of Director. Moreover, the prescribed eligibility qualification provides for single class legislation and is obstructive for everyone, who is not an MA in History. The petitioner contends that under the draft Assam Historical and Antiquarian Studies Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1989 Rules') followed earlier, the petitioner with her postgraduate degree in Sanskrit was eligible to be considered for the post of Director under Rule 12 (4)(a) but now with the changed norms, she is made ineligible for the same post, under the 2010 Rules.