Dismissed

Hemlata Dwivedi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Feb 2020WP(C)/987/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, over-aged by over two years for a Reader post advertised by Assam Recruitment Board, approached High Court to condone age limit and allow her to sit for interview. Court rejected petition as employer cannot alter advertisement terms but remitted age condonation application to principal secretary for disposal before interview.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; respondent No. 1 directed to consider petitioner's pending application for age condonation before interview scheduled on 18.02.2020.

Hemlata Dwivedi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010032582020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 987/2020

¶5

1:HEMLATA DWIVEDI

¶6

W/O- ABHISHEK KUMAR PANDEY, R/O- 280/81, STATION ROAD, NEAR VARANASI BUS STAND, SANGMOHAL, AGHAULI, MIRZAPUR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN- 231001.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-06, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.

¶10

2:THE MEDICAL AND HEALTH RECRUITMENT BOARD ASSAM REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN MEDICAL HEALTH RECRUITMENT BOARD ASSAM SAIKIA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX CHRISTIAN BASTI GHY.- 781005 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ASSAM REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR HAVING OFFICE AT SIX MILE KHANAPARA GHY.- 781022 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM.

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

4:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH COMPLEX HENGRABARI GHY. ASSAM PIN- 781036

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F KHAN

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 14-02-2020

¶19

Heard Mr. Firuz Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. R. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department appearing for all the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶20

Petitioner is presently serving on contractual basis as a ‘Reader’ of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati and attached to the Government Dental College, Dibrugarh, Assam.

¶21

The Chairman, Medical and Health Recruitment Board, Assam, respondent No. 2 on 26.12.2019 issued an advertisement for filling up of 10 nos. of posts of Readers in the Government Dental Colleges under Health & Family Welfare Department of the State out of which 3 posts of Readers was earmarked for Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, Aesthetic Dentistry and Oral Implantology (Annexure-22). In the said advertisement dated 26.12.2019, with regard to the minimum and the maximum age of the intending candidates, the authorities stipulated that such candidates should not be less than 21 years of age and not more than 38 years of age, as on 01.01.2019, granting relaxation of upper age limit for the candidates belonging to the various reserved categories as well as the candidates belonging to the category of Persons with Disabilities.

¶22

Pursuant to the said advertisement dated 26.12.2019 the petitioner filed her application

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

for the post of Reader in Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, Aesthetic Dentistry and Oral Implantology. The respondent No. 2, Medical and Health Recruitment Board rejected the candidature of the petitioner finding her to be an over aged candidate. After such rejection of her candidature, the petitioner on 05.02.2020 filed a representation before the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, respondent No. 1 praying before said authority to condone her over age. The said representation of the petitioner was also forwarded by the Director of Medical Education, Assam, respondent No. 3 on 06.02.2020.

¶25

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider her application dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure-24) and in the interim she has prayed for a direction to the respondents more particularly, the respondent No. 2 to allow her to sit in the ensuing interview scheduled on 18.02.2020.

¶26

It is admitted by the petitioner that as on 01.01.2020 she crossed the upper age limit of 38 years in terms of the said advertisement dated 26.12.2019 by 2 years 4 months and 11 days as per her date of birth. Knowing fully well that she has crossed the upper age limit, she had filed her application for the post of Reader pursuant to the said advertisement dated 26.12.2019, where she is aware about the outcome of her said application.

¶27

Only after 04.02.2020, on rejection of her candidature by the respondent No. 2, Medical and Health Recruitment Board as she crossed the upper age limit as on 01.01.2019, the petitioner on 05.02.2020 filed her representation before the Principal Secretary in the Health & Family Welfare Department, respondent No. 1 to condone her over age so as to enable her to participate in the process of selection to the post of Reader, which is still pending for disposal.

¶28

Clause 10 of the said advertisement dated 26.12.2019 relates to Terms and Conditions and at Clause iii it was specifically provided that – Only those candidates who fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the advertisement in respect of the post for which their applicants shall be entertained. Others need not apply.

¶29

It is not the case of the petitioner that she was not aware that she had already crossed the upper age limit by 02 years 04 months and 11 days as on 01.01.2019 in terms of the said advertisement dated 26.12.2019 and inspite of that she had willfully submitted her

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

application pursuant to the said advertisement dated 26.12.2019 and she was aware about the outcome of her said application and awaited till rejection of her said application and thereby took a chance.

¶32

Petitioner, at the time of filing her said application pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.12.2019 did not file any application before the authority concerned including the Principal Secretary in the Health and Family Welfare Department to condone her over age limit, so as to apply for the post of Reader in terms of said advertisement dated 26.12.2019, nor she approached the Court of law at the relevant time for passing necessary orders, enabling her to apply for the said post, till consideration of such application for condoning her over age by the authority concerned.

¶33

Petitioner is highly educated and she is aware about the consequences of the said advertisement dated 26.12.2019. Age specified in an advertisement is one of the terms and conditions or eligibility of the candidate. Writ Court cannot relax, alter, extend or modify any of the terms and conditions stipulated in an advertisement by the employer. As such, the prayer of the petitioner enabling her to sit in the ensuing interview for the post of Reader pursuant to the said advertisement dated 26.12.2019 scheduled to be held on 18.02.2020 cannot be considered in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

¶34

However, it is made clear that if the respondent No. 1, Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department on or before 17.02.2020 considers petitioner’s said application dated 05.02.2020 regarding condonation of her over age limit pertaining to the post of Reader as advertised on 26.12.2019, that is pending before the said authority, the respondents may allow her to sit in the said interview, scheduled on 18.02.2020.

¶35

With the above observation, this writ petition being devoid of merit, stands rejected.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Hemlata Dwivedi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemlata Dwivedi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyendra Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Namal Ch Daimari Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Bhrigu Thakuria Vs the State Information Commissioner and 9 Ors.

Sanjay Rastogi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

On the Death of Kiran Ch. Deka @ Kiran Deka His Legal Heir Debabala Deka (Wife) Vs the Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Narayan Ch. Das Vs Sasank Shekhar Shastri