Gauhati High Court Upholds Exclusion of 'Commerce' Degree from Director Post Eligibility

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an advertisement for the post of Director of Economics & Statistics which excluded a Master's Degree in Commerce as an eligible qualification. The Court upheld the State's power to define eligibility criteria, finding no constitutional infirmity or unreasonableness in the challenged rule amendment.

The judgment was delivered on March 20, 2025, by a bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. Vijay Bishnoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kaushik Goswami , who authored the decision.

Case Background

The petitioner, Shri Ranjit Kumar Pegu, who joined service as a Statistical Officer in 1992 and was subsequently promoted through various ranks to Joint Director of Economics & Statistics, challenged an advertisement issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) dated August 25, 2023. The advertisement prescribed a minimum second class Master Degree in Statistics, Mathematics, or Economics as the requisite educational qualification for the Director post.

The petitioner, holding a Master's Degree in Commerce, contended that the original Assam Economic and Statistical Service Rule, 1973, included 'Commerce' as a prescribed subject for the post. However, a 1995 amendment to the rules deleted 'Commerce' from the list of eligible qualifications. The petitioner argued that this deletion unfairly deprived Commerce degree holders like himself from being considered for the promotional post of Director.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. M. Talukdar and Mr. P. P. Dutta , argued that the impugned amendment was unconstitutional, unreasonable, and discriminatory, having been made to suit "vested interested persons". They submitted that other states in India included Commerce as an eligible subject for similar posts.

Conversely, Mr. D. K. Sarmah, Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents, contended that 'Commerce' had been inadvertently included in the 1973 Rules alongside specific subjects like Statistics, Mathematics, and Economics. The 1995 amendment was a rectification to align the eligibility criteria with the actual requirements of the post, effectively deleting a "misnomer" from the rules. The advertisement, therefore, merely conformed to the existing amended rules.

Court's Ruling and Reasoning

The High Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the relevant rules and advertisement, sided with the respondents. The Court observed that the advertisement was issued in conformity with the 1995 amended rules, which deleted 'Commerce' from the list of prescribed subjects.

The bench noted that determining the required educational qualifications for a specific post is the prerogative of the State respondents, and the Court does not possess the expertise to interfere in such matters.

Crucially, the Court highlighted the lack of substance in the petitioner's challenge to the constitutional validity of the amendment. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, including State of Haryana V. State of Punjab and Binoy Viswam V. Union of India , the judgment reiterated that a statutory provision can only be invalidated on two grounds: lack of legislative competence or contravention of fundamental/constitutional rights. Merely claiming a provision is unconstitutional, unreasonable, or discriminatory without pleading "prima facie acceptable grounds" or "material particulars" is insufficient.

The Court explicitly rejected the petitioner's contention that the amendment was driven by vested interests, stating that such claims were "devoid of any particulars or materials whatsoever". It also held that the potential loss of opportunity for the petitioner in his service period was not a sufficient ground to interfere with the amendment. The Court found the respondent's explanation — that 'Commerce' was inadvertently added and deleted because it is a stream rather than a specific subject like Economics, Statistics, or Mathematics — to be reasonable.

> "Merely saying that a particular provision is unconstitutional or discriminatory will not suffice. It is imperative for the petitioner to plead prima facie acceptable grounds in support of the challenge in order to sustain the same. In the absence of any such pleadings, the challenge to the Constitutional validity of a statutory provision is liable to be rejected in limine."

> "Thus, upon careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered view that the impugned amendment is not unconstitutional and/or unreasonable and therefore the same warrants no interference from this Court. The impugned advertisement having been issued in terms of the amendment in question, the same also cannot be faulted with."

Conclusion

Finding the writ petition "devoid of any merit whatsoever," the Gauhati High Court dismissed the plea. The decision reinforces the principle that courts generally defer to the executive's authority in setting recruitment qualifications and that challenges to statutory amendments require specific and substantiated constitutional grounds, not just vague claims of unfairness or discrimination.