MD Abu Suvan Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

MD ABU SUVAN SON OF LATE ABU SAIM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O- PURANIGUDAM P.S.- SAMAGURI DIST- NAGAON-782141 ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 2:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES MEEN BHAWAN GOPINATH GUWAHATI - 16 4:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NAGAON MILANPUR PIN-782001

¶21

Page No.# 3/8

¶22

5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR

¶23

GUWAHATI- 6.

¶24

6:THE SECRETARY ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION KHANAPARA GUWAHATI- 22. -----------Advocate for : MR S P DAS Advocate for : SC FISHERY appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

¶25

BEFORE

¶26

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶27

ORDER

¶28

17.07.2025

¶29

Heard Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel for the APSC and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Fishery Department.

¶30

The writ petition WP(C)/2840/2025 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.05.2025, whereby, in pursuance of the directions passed on 02.05.2025 in WP(C)/2348/2025, the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking condonation of the upper age limit was rejected and the writ petition WP(C)/2348/2025 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.04.2025, whereby, in pursuance of the directions passed on 04.04.2025 in WP(C)/1696/2025, the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking condonation of the upper age limit was rejected.

¶31

The petitioner before this Court was previously employed as a Technical Expert – Fisheries on a contractual basis pursuant to the advertisement dated

¶32

Page No.# 4/8

¶33

31.03.2018. His contractual services continued until they were discontinued, along with those of other similarly situated persons, vide order dated 24.02.2025. In the said order, the name of the petitioner appears at serial no. 14. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to his termination, the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) issued an advertisement dated 18.02.2025 inviting applications for selection and appointment to the post of Fisheries Development Officer (FDO) under the Fishery Department. The total number of posts advertised was 65, out of which 39 were for the open category.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date when the advertisement was issued, the petitioner was still serving on a contractual basis as Technical Expert – Fisheries. It is the petitioner’s case that the post advertised under Advertisement No. 08/2025 dated 18.02.2025 and the post he was holding are essentially of the same nature, having identical job descriptions. It is further submitted that no deficiency was ever found in the services rendered by the petitioner during his contractual employment.

¶35

However, although the petitioner applied for the post advertised under Advertisement No. 08/2025 dated 18.02.2025, his application was not accepted as the upper age limit for general category candidates was fixed at 38 years as on 01.01.2025. As on the date of application, the petitioner was over 42 years of age. Consequently, he submitted a representation before the Department of Fisheries on 06.03.2025, seeking condonation of the upper age limit to enable him to be considered for the post of Fisheries Development Officer (FDO).

¶36

Since no order was passed on the said representation, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C)/1695/2025. The said writ petition was disposed of on 04.04.2025 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 06.03.2025.

¶37

Page No.# 5/8

¶38

The said order was duly communicated to the respondent department, and by order dated 30.04.2025, the petitioner’s application for age relaxation was rejected.

¶39

Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing WP(C)/2348/2025. By order dated 02.05.2025, the earlier order was modified. However, despite such modification, the respondent department again rejected the petitioner’s request for relaxation of the upper age limit.

¶40

Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present proceedings seeking appropriate directions.

¶41

Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Department is governed by the Assam Fisheries and Aquaculture Service Rules, 2024, and in particular refers to Rule 25 thereof. It is submitted that the said Rule empowers the Department to relax any of the provisions of the Rules in cases where their strict application would cause undue hardship. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent authorities failed to consider the petitioner’s case from the perspective of hardship, especially considering that the upper age limit prescribed in the advertisement dated 18.02.2025 was fixed at 38 years. It is further submitted that the petitioner had rendered his services diligently and to the satisfaction of all concerned during his tenure under contractual employment. Under such circumstances, it is urged that the respondents ought to have sympathetically considered the petitioner’s request and exercised the power of relaxation in his favour.

¶42

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the parties submits that the writ petition be allowed by setting aside the rejection order passed by the department, and by issuing a direction to the Department of Fisheries to pass

¶43

Page No.# 6/8

¶44

appropriate orders granting relaxation of the upper age limit in favour of the petitioner.

¶45

Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Fisheries Department, on the other hand disputes the contentions raised by the petitioner. He submits that the upper age limit cannot be condoned, as there exists a general notification issued by the Government of Assam, Department of Personnel, which prescribes that the upper age limit for candidates belonging to the General/Open category is 38 years. This notification, he submits, is applicable to all departments, including the Fisheries Department.

¶46

He further submits that under the Assam Fisheries and Aquaculture Service Rules, 2024 itself the maximum upper age limit prescribed for direct recruitment is 38 years, or as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time. Therefore, since the Rules themselves prescribe the upper age limit, there is no scope for issuing a direction to the department to act contrary to the Rules, unless the validity of such Rules are put to challenge — which is not the case in the present proceedings. Accordingly, he submits that there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶47

The learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. The relevant Service Rules have also been examined. It is noted that there is a specific provision under Rule 7 of the Assam Fisheries and Aquaculture Service Rules, 2024, which prescribes the upper age limit for candidates applying for direct recruitment. The said rule extracted below :-

¶48

A candidate for direct recruitment to the service shall be minimum

¶49

21 years and maximum 38 years or as notified by the Government from

¶50

Page No.# 7/8

¶51

time to time, on the first January of the year of advertisement, with relaxation in case of candidates belonging to special categories like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and any other category as laid down by the Government from time to time.

¶52

Although Rule 25 of the Assam Fisheries and Aquaculture Service Rules, 2024 provides for relaxation of the Rules in cases where their application causes undue hardship, such inherent power vested in the department is to be exercised in specific and deserving cases requiring such consideration. However, Rule 25 cannot be read in isolation and must be harmoniously construed with Rule 7, which specifically prescribes that the maximum upper age limit for direct recruitment shall be 38 years, or as may be modified by the Government from time to time.

¶53

The Government notification issued by the Department of Personnel also prescribes the maximum upper age limit for general category candidates as 38 years. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the materials placed before the Court, it is evident that on the date the advertisement was issued, the petitioner had already crossed the prescribed upper age limit of 38 years.

¶54

In compliance with the earlier directions issued by this Court, the petitioner’s request for age relaxation has already been considered by the department on two separate occasions. On both occasions, the prayer for relaxation stood rejected.

¶55

It is also pertinent to note that Rule 7 of the Service Rules has neither been put to challenge in the present proceedings, nor has any interpretation of the said Rule been sought for. The only relief prayed for by the petitioner is that

¶56

Page No.# 8/8

¶57

his case be considered for relaxation under Rule 25. This prayer, however, has already been allowed by this Court in its order dated 04.04.2025 in WP(C)/1696/2025 and the subsequent order dated 02.05.2025 passed in WP(C)/2348/2025 and which prayer had been thereafter rejected by the Department.

¶58

Under the circumstances, since this Court had earlier directed the department to consider the petitioner’s case for relaxation, and such direction was duly complied with, resulting in the department deciding the matter against the writ petitioner, this Court is not inclined to pass any further order directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for relaxation under Rule 25. This is particularly so in the absence of any specific instances or grounds demonstrating that the department’s consideration was improper or incomplete and in the absence of any fresh material placed before this Court to justify such reconsideration.

¶59