1. Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners. The respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 are represented by Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.N. Choudhury appears for the respondent No.7. The subsequently impleaded respondent Nos.11 19 are represented by Mr. N.J. Khataniar, the learned Counsel.

2. The matter pertains to recruitment of 98 Excise Constables for which approval for appointment was granted on 9.9.2010. The vacancies were notified with Matriculation as the educational eligibility and besides, sound health and prescribed physical standards were described as essential requirement for the job of Excise Constables, who were to be deployed in field duties. The age limit between 18-38 years plus the minimum height requirement for the candidates eligibility, was also indicated. The general notification for the vacancies was advertised on 16.9.2010 in two local newspapers.

3. The field testing of the applicants were done in different district headquarters where the candidates were tested on their fitness, by subjecting the male candidates to run 1.6 k.m. under 6.5 minutes and the female candidate to cover half this distance, within the same time frame.

4. According to the petitioners, the selected candidate Mamani Begum (respondent No.7) was not a fit person and more importantly, she is not taller than 145 cm and hence she did not satisfy the height requirement of 154.94 cm. The next challenge is against the respondent Nos.11 19 who had crossed the upper age limit of 38 years and therefore consideration of their candidatures by granting them age relaxation, is questioned by the unsuccessful candidates.

ARGUMENTS

5.1 The learned Senior Counsel Mr. B.D. Konwar submits that extraneous consideration ensured the unmerited selection of Mamani Begum (respondent No.7) , who was short statured and did not satisfy the height or the fitness requirement.

5.2 According to Mr. Konwar, there is no legal justification for age relaxation for the over aged respondent Nos.11 19 and to bring home his challenge he argues that the job profile of Excise Constables should discourage consideration of aged candidates, by condoning their older age. The availability of large number of young eligible candidates is also highlighted by the Senior Counsel to question the wisdom of allowing the over-aged candidates in the fray.

6.1 Defending the process of selection, Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department in his turn, refers to the States counter affidavit filed on 10.2.2014 to project that the height of the candidate Mamani Begum (respondent No.7) was measured during the field test on 9.12.2010, by the three Member Selection Committee (constituted with the Excise Officer, the Sports Officer and the Medical Officer) and they have certified Mamoni Begums height as 155 cm. Accordingly Mr. Goswami argues that shortness of height projected against the respondent No.7 is nothing but an un-substantiated assertion of the unsuccessful candidates.

6.2 On the second challenge, the departmental lawyer highlights the fact that the respondents 11-19 were the beneficiaries of age relaxation granted by the Government and they were impleaded subsequently on 8.5.2015 in the Misc. Case No.2539/2014. By virtue of condonation of their upper age limit, Mr. P.N. Goswami submits that challenge to their recruitment on this ground is not maintainable as the required averments have not been incorporated in the writ petition, for the over-aged category.

7. The beneficiaries of age relaxation are represented by the learned Counsel Mr. N.J. Khataniar and he submits that the upper age limit for the respondent Nos.11 19 were condoned as per governmental policy and then these candidates succeeded through open competition. The Counsel further submits that even the aged candidate could satisfy the fitness requirement during the field test and hence their