JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Manojit Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing the appellants, assisted by Mr. R. Goswami, Advocate as well as Ms. R.B. Bora, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 3 and 4. While Mr. S.M. Baruah, Advocate have entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 10, there is none to represent the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/ writ petitioners although notices had been despatched. On record, the respondent No. 2/ writ petitioner No. 2 have filed affidavit-in-opposition.

2. This is an intra-Court appeal presented against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2015 passed in WP(C) 904/2014. The appellants herein were arrayed as respondent Nos. 6, 11, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 16 and 17 in the order as impleaded in the related writ petition.

3. Facts to be noticed is that on 05.09.2013 an Advertisement was issued by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Assam inviting applications for filling up 16 (sixteen) vacancies in the post of Draftsman/Planning Draftsman-II. Out of the said vacancies, 1 (one) was reserved for ST(P), 3 (three) for OBC candidates and 12 (twelve) for General Category candidates. The educational qualification prescribed was that the candidates should possess qualification of 2 (two) years Certificate Course in Draftsmanship(Civil) from Government recognized institution. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2/writ petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 applied for the post on account of possessing the required qualification. Consequent upon the selection process, which involved written examination and viva-voce test, a Select List was published on 12.02.2014. Whereas the present appellants were shown selected, the names of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/ writ petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 did not figure in the said Select List. Aggrieved, they filed the related WP(C) 904/2014.

4. In the writ petition, the ground of challenge centered around the educational qualification criteria. Submission made was that the selected candidates do not possess the prescribed qualification of 2 (two) years Certificate Course in Draftsmanship (Civil) from Government recognized institution. Rather, they have only undergone 3 (three) years Diploma Course, either in Civil Engineering Planning or in Architectural Assistant-ship, which only qualifies them to be appointed to the next higher post.

5. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by interfering with the Select List dated 12.02.2014 to the extent that the same be recast on the basis of the selection records, confining the selection to those candidates having educational qualification as prescribed in the Advertisement dated 05.09.2013. Interference was made by observing that the educational qualification prescribed is in tune with that prescribed under the Assam Town and Country Planning Subordinate Service Orders, 1991 (in short 'Service Order of 1991'). It was observed that the Service Order of 1991 also takes into consideration the 3 (three) years Diploma Course, either in Civil Engineering or in Architectural Assistant-ship, as the prescribed academic qualification for the post of Planning Assistant, which is a higher post than Draftsman-II/Planning Draftsman Grade-II. It was held that just because the 3 (three) years Diploma Course in Civil Engineering or in Architectural Assistant-ship is the prescribed qualification for a higher post under the same Service Order, it would not ipso facto mean that the qualification can also be treated as the eligibility criteria for the advertised posts in question. Analogy was drawn that if for a particular post the educational eligibility criteria prescribed is Matriculation, a person who is a graduate can also vie for the post, notwithstanding the fact that graduation is a higher qualification than matriculation. Justification assigned is that a person has to pass through matriculation in order to be a graduate. A similar illustration was made in respect of a particular post where the minimum prescribed qualification is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document