Point of Law : If a selection process is not initiated and kept in abeyance for reason that a conscious decision is in contemplation for changing eligibility conditions of rules, in such event, although vacancies may have arisen prior to conscious decision, selection process would be governed by conscious decision that have been taken and not by rules as it existed when vacancies had arisen.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned senior counsel for the respondents in the Revenue and Disaster Management Department of the Government of Assam. Also heard Ms. R.B. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 being the Director, Land Records and Surveys, BTC, Kokrajhar.

2. It is stated that an advertisement No. TPR-74/2016-67-69 dated 02.02.2016 was issued inviting applications, amongst others, for 68 numbers of vacant posts of Gaonburah in the Baksa district of BTC. The writ petitioners herein had participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.02.2016. According to the petitioners, without bringing the advertisement of 02.02.2016 to its logical end, a subsequent advertisement dated 10.12.2018 had been issued by the Director, Land Records and Surveys, BTC, Kokrajhar. The advertisement of 10.12.2018 follows the age limit prescribed by the notification dated 10.04.2018, wherein the minimum age is prescribed to be 35 years. The grievances of the petitioners are, firstly, the advertisement of 10.12.2018 had been issued without bringing a logical end to the earlier advertisement dated 02.02.2016 and secondly, the minimum age provided by the notification dated 10.04.2018 could not have been adopted, inasmuch it is a continuous selection process as per the earlier advertisement dated 02.02.2016. According to the writ petitioners, as the selection process had already been initiated by the advertisement dated 02.02.2016 providing for a minimum age of 21 years, therefore, following the procedure of law in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. reported in (1983)3SCC 284, the rules prevailing as regards the minimum age as on 02.02.2016 would govern the selection process and not the minimum age prescribed by the notification dated 10.04.2018. With the aforesaid grievance, the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 5665/2019 had been instituted, wherein the reliefs sought for is for setting aside the selection process as per the advertisement dated 10.12.2018 with a further direction to issue a fresh advertisement in terms of a subsequent notification dated 19.07.2019, wherein the minimum prescribed age limit had again been brought down to 25 years.

3. Taking note of the prima facie case said to be made out by the petitioners, an interim order dated 07.08.2019 had been passed, whereby there was an interim direction not to declare the results of the selection process of Gaonburah for the district of Baksa, pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.12.2018. The Director, Land Records and Surveys, BTC being aggrieved by the interim order dated 07.08.2019 had instituted I.A.(Civil) No. 1120/2022 for vacating the interim order dated 07.08.2019.

4. Both Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned senior counsel for the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam and Ms. R.B. Bora, learned counsel for the Director, Land Records and Surveys, BTC, have raised a contention that the selection process pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 02.02.2016 had been cancelled by the authorities and the said fact finds reference in the advertisement dated 10.12.2018. By raising such contention, it is the submission of Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned senior counsel and Ms. R.B. Bora that the first ground of assailing the advertisement dated 10.12.2018 falls through, inasmuch as the selection process pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 02.02.2016 had already been cancelled and it is not a case where the selection process is a continuation pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 02.02.2016. As a corollary thereof, it is the further contention that as the earlier selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.02.2016 had already been cancelled, therefore, the subsequent selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.12.2018 would be a new selection process and it is not a