SRI DADHI MOHAN MEDHI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM and ORS

Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary

Education Department, Assam for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. K.M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 28.02.2017 passed in WP(C) 2397/2016, which was instituted by the respondent no. 5 herein. In

the said writ petition, however, the present appellant was not made party respondent. Leave to appeal having been allowed, this appeal is heard

and taken up for final disposal at the Admission stage today.

Pursuant to Advertisement Notice dated 13.12.2015, the appellant had taken part in the selection process, along with the respondent no. 5

herein and others, for the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) at Boko Higher Secondary School. As per the Advertisement, the upper age

limit of a candidate was fixed at 38 years as on 01.01.2015. The respondent no. 5, who had been serving in the school on honorary basis since

02.01.2007, had made an application along with two other candidates before the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Amingaon for

relaxation of age, as he had attained 42 years as on 01.01.2015. At a time when the application was pending consideration, the Selection

Committee had permitted the respondent no. 5 and the other two candidates to take part in the selection process. In the said selection process, the

respondent no. 5 was placed in the second position whereas the appellant herein was placed in the third position. One Sri Kushal Bora was placed

in the first position. When the state of affairs stood thus, an order dated 26.02.2016 came to be issued by the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup

District Circle, rejecting the prayer for relaxation of age. This action came to be assailed in the related writ petition i.e. WP(C) 2397/2016.

The primary ground of challenge, as urged by the appellant, is that having regard to the order dated 26.02.2016 passed by the Inspector of

Schools, KDC, he was necessary party and ought to have been impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition and allowed opportunity of

hearing. This not having been done, goes to the root of the matter, vitiating the order under challenge. It is submitted that in the aforesaid order

dated 26.02.2016, whereby the prayer for relaxation of the age of the respondent no. 5 was rejected, it also makes mention that the second

position holder of the school in question will be eligible for appointment as Junior Assistant. It is the case of the appellant that he being placed in the

second position, a valuable right accrued on him to defend the order dated 26.02.2016, on being so challenged in WP(C) 2397/2016.

At the outset we place on record that the ground of challenge and the submission made that he was placed in the second position in the selection

of Junior Assistant at Boko Higher Secondary School, is altogether incorrect and misconceived. The admitted position is that one Sri Kushal Bora

was placed in the first position, followed by the respondent no. 5 herein in the second position, followed by the appellant herein at the third

position. This state of affairs is also admitted to by the appellant herein, which can be seen from the pleadings at paragraph 1.04 of the present

appeal memo.

The appellant herein is in no way involved in the adjudication of the issue raised by the respondent no. 5 in the writ petition, inasmuch as,

consideration was with regard to the grievance expressed in the rejection of the prayer of relaxation of age vis-a-vis the Government Circular

dated 04.01.1992 which permits relaxation of age upto 45 years. The direction of the learned Single Judge for granting ex-post facto approval to

the application of the respondent no. 5 for relaxation of his age cannot have any effect of impinging on any rights of the appellant. Also, the fact that

the respondent no. 5 had been serving in the school since the year 2007 on honorary basis, cannot be ignored from due consideration. These being

the position, we find no merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.