Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1736
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, S.V.N. BHATTI, jj.
Jyotsna Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 11777-11778 of 2025 [@ SLP (C) NOS. 13145 -13146 OF 2025]
Decided on : 25-09-2025
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rituraj Biswas, AOR Mr. Mayan Prasad, Adv. Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Adv. Mr. Aayush Garg, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv. Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv. Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Adv.
The decision reaffirmed that the selection process for teaching positions at aided institutions must adhere to the applicable rules specified in the advertisement, ensuring candidates are not unfairly disqualified due to incorrect application of age rules.
Headnote:(A) Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001 - Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 - Age eligibility for appointment as Lecturer challenged - Court held that the selection process should adhere to 2001 Rules as no age limit specified; condonation of age was valid - Citing the improper application of 2003 Rules as grounds for setting aside the lower court orders. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Meritorious appointment - Establishing the principle that adherence to the right rules in recruitment ensures fairness and legality; wrongful application of age limits led to the incorrect dismissal of the Appellant's position as Lecturer. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant, selected as Lecturer in History, faced legal challenges regarding her age exceeding that prescribed by the responding rules. The Appellant, having served 18 years, contested the applicability of age limits that were not present in the original advertisement.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the resolution to condone over-age was necessary and lawful, and that the Appellant’s appointment complied with the applicable rules guiding aided institutions.
Issues: The main issues addressed included the relevant rules regarding age limits for the teaching position and the legality of the orders from the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that the lower courts improperly applied rules which did not govern the appointment process in this context, asserting that the Appellant’s selection was justified under the 2001 Rules and could not be invalidated retroactively.
Result: Civil appeals allowed and the previous orders set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. closure of pending applications and proceedings. (Para 1 , 8) |
| 2. litigation background regarding appointment process. (Para 2) |
| 3. interpretation of eligibility rules and prior findings. (Para 3) |
| 4. arguments on applicability of rules to aided institution. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. court's recognition of proper rules governing appointment. (Para 6) |
| 6. court's directive for reinstatement and continuity of service. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel, Mr. Rituraj Biswas and Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. AAG. Respondent No.5, despite the service of notice of the pending proceedings, is not represented.
2. The Appellant assails the order dated 24.05.2023, in Review Petition No. 175 of 2017, and the order dated 24.02.2012 in Writ Appeal No. 262 of 2011 in the Gauhati High Court at Gauhati. The journey of the litigation dates back to the advertisement dated 28.02.2006, issued by Respondent No. 3 to fill a vacant post of Lecturer in History. The Appellant and Respondent No. 5 have participated in the selection process, and by the resolution dated 24.07.2006, the Governing Body of Respondent No. 3 - College, having noticed the relatively better merit and suitability of the Appellant, resolved to select the Appellant. On the even date, the Governing Body forwarded the resolution to Respondent No.1/Government for approval. At this juncture, we notice the undisputed facts that the Respondent No. 3 is an aided institution as on the date of selection process. Therefore, the selection process was set in motion by referring to the Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001 (for short “2001 Rules”). The advertisement does not stipulate an upper or lower age limit as a qualification or disqualification, as the case may be, for applying for the post of Lecturer in History. The Respondent No. 1, on the request of Respondent No. 3, vide communication dated 13.10.2006, exercising its jurisdiction/discretion, communicated to Respondent No. 3, condoning the alleged overage of 2 years 7 months of the Appellant. On 22.03.2007, the Respondent No. 2 approved the appointment of the Appellant as a Lecturer. The Appellant entered service of Lecturer in Respondent No. 3- College. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 admit that the Appellant has put in a continuous service of 18 years as Lecturer in History in Respondent No. 3 - College. Respondent No. 5 filed a Writ Petition No. 1707 of 2007 challenging the order of approval dated 13.10.2006, condoning the over-age of 2 years 7 months and the order dated 22.03.2007 approving the Appellant’s appointment. The case of Respondent No. 5, briefly stated, is that the Appellant was aged 39 years at the time of advertisement or during appointment to the post of Lecturer. The advertisement is issued referring to the 2001 Rules. However, according to the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 (for short “2003 Rules”), the prescribed age limit for a candidate being recruited is between twenty-one to thirty-six years. The order condoning the over-age is illegal and contrary to the 2003 Rules. The case of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was that the 2003 Rules, at the time of issuance of the advertisement, had no application to College of Respondent No.3, and that the advertisement was issued referring to the 2001 Rules. There is a difference between an appointment in an aided institution and in a Government College. In the absence of a provision stipulating which one of the enactments is applicable, viz., Assam Higher Secondary Education Act, 1984 or The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1977, the discretion exercised by the Respondent No. 1 in abundant caution does not give a cause to a candidate at serial no. 2 to challenge the appointment of Appellant who stood at serial no.1. The Learned Single Judge on 30.03.2010 dismissed the Writ Petition. A few of the findings recorded by the order dated 30.03.2010 are very apt for understanding the fact
