Allowed

Anjali Sah v. the Union of India and 11 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Dec 2021WP(C)/3734/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition regarding a recruitment dispute. The petitioner claimed applicability for a GD post despite discrepancies in her date of birth between her own records and the Board of Secondary Education Assam's records. The Court accepted the Board's explanation regarding a provisional date relaxation for a past examination, directed the Union of India to proceed wi

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to be selected as constable based on date of birth 14.04.1997; she was directed to apply the Board of Secondary Education for a fresh HS Leaving Certificate. The writ petit

Anjali Sah Vs the Union of India and 11 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010101382021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3734/2021

¶5

ANJALI SAH

¶6

D/O. SUNIL SAH, R/O. GRAHAM BAZAR, NEAR JAIN MANDIR ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. DIBRUGARH, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786001.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 11 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, 1.

¶9

2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN BLOCK NO.12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03.

¶10

3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION GUWAHATI ASSAM HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY.-06.

¶11

4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO.10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03.

¶12

5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SASHATRA SEEMA BALL

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 22. 6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE EAST BLOCK-07 LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01 R.K.PURAM NEW DELHI 66. 7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE BLOCK NO.IV CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03. 8:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO.13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03. 9:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES NONGRIMMAW LAITUMUKHRAH GORALINE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA 11. 10:THE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY.-21. 11:THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM

¶15

Page No.# 3/5

¶16

GHY.-21.

¶17

12:THE SECRETARY BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY.-21

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

07.12.2021

¶22

Heard Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. SK Medhi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 being the authorities in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and the various Central Security Forces and Mr. TC Chutia, learned counsel for the respondents No. 10, 11 and 12 being the authorities in the SEBA.

¶23

In response to an advertisement in the Employment News (Rozgar Samachar) dated 21.07.2018 issued by the Staff Selection Commission for recruitment of constables (GD) in the various Central Armed Police Forces, the petitioner had offered her candidature and participated in the selection process. Clause 4A of the advertisement provides the age limit to be 18 to 23 years as on 01.08.2018 with an explanation that a candidate should not have been born either earlier to 02.08.1995 or later than 01.08.2020.

¶24

The petitioner relies upon the High School Leaving Certificate issued by the respondent SEBA, wherein her date of birth is stated to be 01.03.1997, whereas the registration card issued by the SEBA for the same examination showed her date of birth to be 14.04.1997. According to the respondents in the

¶25

Page No.# 4/5

¶26

Union of India, in the application form, the petitioner stated her date of birth to be 14.04.1997, whereas the High School Leaving Certificate relied upon shows the date of birth to be 01.03.1997.

¶27

Mr. TC Chutia, learned standing counsel for SEBA explained that the date of birth 03.01.1997 depicted in the High School Leaving Certificate at page 67 of the writ petition is made in the American style, which would have actually to be read to be 1^st day of March, 1997. According to the respondents in the Union of India, the candidature of the petitioner was unacceptable and therefore although the petitioner had participated in the selection process, the final result thereof was not declared.

¶28

At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition and accordingly, there was a requirement to keep the result in a sealed cover and in the meantime, the date of birth of the petitioner be verified by the respondents in the SEBA.

¶29

The respondents in the SEBA has filed an affidavit through the Secretary of SEBA taking the stand that the correct date of birth of the petitioner as per the records in the SEBA is 14.04.1997 and therefore, the registration card was issued showing the said date of birth and from such point of view, the information provided by the petitioner in the online application was also the correct information. The SEBA further explains that the date of birth 1^st April, 1997 shown in the High School Leaving Certificate was as because the respondents in the SEBA while analysing the application of the petitioner to appear in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination for the year 2012, arrived at a conclusion that she was short of one month of the required age limit to participate in the examination. Therefore, in order to condone the

¶30

Page No.# 5/5

¶31

shortage of age limit to appear in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination, the authorities in the SEBA took a decision to provisionally provide her date of birth to be 01.03.1997 instead of 14.04.1997, so that the petitioner becomes able to participate in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination.

¶32

The said stand of the SEBA was to ensure that the petitioner does not lose one year as because she was short by about 15 days from being 15 years when she had appeared in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination.

¶33

We accept the aforesaid explanation by the SEBA and accordingly also accept that the date of birth of the petitioner is 14.04.1997. In view of the explanation by the SEBA, we direct the respondents in the Union of India who had conducted the recruitment process to proceed ahead with the selection of the petitioner by accepting her date of birth to be 14.04.1997 and bring her selection to its logical end. In the meantime, if the petitioner desires, she may apply before the SEBA for a fresh certificate, showing her correct date of birth and in the event, it is made, the SEBA may favourably consider th same.

¶34

The change of date of birth by the SEBA in the High School Leaving Certificate at page 67 Annexure-I of the writ petition would be construed to be an act by the SEBA relaxing the age limit of the petitioner to participate in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination for the year 2012.

¶35

The writ petition is allowed as indicated above.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Anjali Sah v. the Union of India and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjali Sah v. the Union of India and 11 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

Chinmoy Das Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Amit Basumatari Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gagan Chaudhury and 2 Ors. Vs the Gauhati University and 6 Ors.

Shri Shah Jahangir Alom Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

GO-2518M M.L Agarwal Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Buli Begum Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.