1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the IOCL”) and their officers are represented by Mr. N. Deka, who is the Standing Counsel of the Guwahati Refinery of the IOCL.

BACKGROUND

2. The petitioner’s father Deben Chandra Medhi was an employee under the IOCL but he died-in-harness on 30.8.2005. When the employee died, “the IOCL Employee’s Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme”, hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme” was in vogue in the IOCL, under which, inter alia, employment for eligible dependent children of the employee was envisaged. Time limit of three years from the date of death of the employee was prescribed for making such claim and after 3 years, the right of appointment lapses under the Scheme.

3. As the deceased employee was survived by his widow and 2 sons, the option for employment was initially sought for the elder son Amarjyoti Medhi. But unfortunately the elder son died and thereafter the widow applied to the IOCL on 3.4.2007 (Annexure-V) requesting employment for her younger son Samar Jyoti Medhi (writ petitioner). It was informed in the said application that the second son had appeared in the ITI Examination and is expected to secure the qualification criterion prescribed under the IOCL’s scheme.

4. The petitioner qualified in the trade of Fitter on 10.5.2007 and immediately thereafter, his mother applied for petitioner’s employment under the Scheme, through her application dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure-VII). However the IOCL through their letter dated 5.7.2007 (Annexure-IX), informed her that Samarjyoti Medhi is ineligible for employment since he has crossed 32 + years of age as on 12.6.2007, the date on which application for appointment was made under the Scheme. This communication however is not challenged in the case. The 2nd communication dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure-X) was then sent by the IOCL which stated that Samarjyoti having got married on 23.5.2006 was not a dependent family member and therefore his employment can’t be considered under the Scheme of the IOCL.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

5.1 Assailing the legality of the rejection of his candidature, the petitioner refers to the IOCL’s letter dated 7.3.2007 (Annexure-IV) to project that the petitioner’s mother was informed earlier of the requirement of being possessed of qualification for being considered under the Scheme with further intimation that, the child should acquire the prescribed qualification within 7 years from the date of death of the employee. Therefore the learned advocate Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury argues that the petitioner had qualified within the permitted time span of 7 years from the date of death of his father (30.8.2005) and hence his application for appointment under the Scheme, should have received positive consideration.

5.2 Questioning the legality of the rejection of the petitioner’s application on the twin ground of age bar and marital status, the learned Counsel cites the instances of five married applicants under the IOCL, who were appointed under the Scheme. The example of one Samir Maity, a married applicant who was appointed at age 33 years is also referred to by Mr. Roychoudhury, to allege discriminatory treatment against the petitioner by the State undertaking.

5.3 Adverting to the 6th December 2006 meeting of the Board of Trustees who operate the Scheme in the IOCL, the learned Counsel submits that married sons/daughters were excluded from the category of dependent only through the decision taken by the Board of Trustees on 6.12.2006 and therefore since the petitioner’s father died earlier on 30.8.2005, it is argued that the bar of marital status can’t be applied to the petitioner. Mr Roychoudhury reads the Inter Office Memo of 10.7.2007 to project that the amendment in the Scheme to exclude married applicants can’t be retrospectively applied for those, whose bread earner had died when the unamended scheme