IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) AIZAWL BENCH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Smt. Saithantluangi Zote and Anr. - Appellant
Vs.
Secretary, Mizoram Public Service Commission and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 98 of 2022
Decided on : 20-09-2022
Mizoram Civil Services (Combined Competitive) Examination Rules, 2020 – Rule 4, 5 –d Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Section 2 – Certifying Authority – Learned counsel petitioners learned counsel for respondent have appeared in Court today in person – Petitioners have put to challenge impugned Corrigendum respondent by which petitioners have been disqualified from participating – Held, Court does not have any quarrel with proposition submission made by learned counsel for respondent Clause cannot override provisions – Court finds that the subject matter in issue is not with regard to whether Notification – Apex Court has held that once an advertisement had been issued basis of circular obtaining at that particular time effect would be that selection process should continue on basis of criteria which were laid down – Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have appeared in the Court today in person.
2. The petitioners have put to challenge the impugned Corrigendum dated 05.09.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2, by which the petitioners have been disqualified from participating further in the Mizoram Civil Services (Combined Competitive) Main Examination, 2022, herein after referred to as the “Combined Examination, 2022” on the ground of being over-aged. Further, vide the said Corrigendum dated 05.09.2022, the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have been called to take part in the personal interview in place of the petitioners.
3. The petitioners’ case in brief is that they belong to the Scheduled Tribe category and they have been working as regular Government Servants for more than 4 years. Pursuant to the Advertisement No. 7/2020-21 dated 11.03.2021, for filling up the vacant posts of Junior Grade in various Services under the Government of Mizoram, the petitioners submitted their online applications. In terms of the Advertisement No. 7/20250-21 dated 11.03.2021, herein after referred to as the “Advertisement”, a total of 28 posts were to be filled up, out of which 7 + 1 (reserved for PwBD) posts were to be filled up in the Mizoram Civil Services (MCS in short). The 1 post mentioned above was reserved for persons with Benchmark Disabilities having (i) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; and (ii) multiple disabilities from amongst persons with blindness and low vision; deaf and hard of hearing; locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; including deaf-blindness.
Vide Addendum dated 16.08.2021 issued by the respondent No. 1, the number of vacant posts of Junior Grade of MCS to be filled was enhanced to 14 + 1. The petitioners’ case is that they are only interested in the vacant posts of Mizoram Civil Services, wherein 14 posts was reserved for the “General Category Candidates” and 1 post was reserved for a “Person with Benchmark Disabilities.”
4. The State respondents thereafter issued Admit Cards to the petitioners for taking part in the Preliminary Examination, on the basis of the Final Valid List of Candidates dated 21.09.2021, issued by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
5. The petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 cleared the Preliminary Examination and their names were listed in the Preliminary Result List dated 07.01.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners were issued fresh Admit Cards for the Written Examination (Mains), wherein the Roll No. of the petitioner No. 1 was 200 and the Roll No. of the petitioner No. 2 was 300. The petitioners cleared the Written Examination (Mains) and they were accordingly listed at Serial Nos. 35 & 49 respectively in the Main Examination Result List dated 23.08.2022.
6. The petitioner No. 1 was informed through Mobile in the first week of September, 2022 that she was to face personal interview on 26.09.2022. On the other hand, the petitioner No. 2 was informed that he would be facing personal interview on 27.09.2022, vide letter dated 25.08.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2. Subsequently, to the surprise of the petitioners, the petitioners were informed that they were disqualified from further participating in the selection process, on the ground of them being over-aged, vide the impugned Corrigendum dated 05.09.2022.
7. The petitioners’ counsel submits that in terms of the conditions of eligibility provided at Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement, relaxation of age of a Schedule Tribe candidate was to be made upto 40 years, in terms of the Notification dated 03.06.2019, published in the Mizoram Gazette dated 10.06.2019. He submits that in terms of the Notification dated 03.06.2019, a Go
Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B.Karunakar
Madan Mohan Sharma and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
The absence of specific provision for age relaxation for specially abled candidates in the Rules, 2018, at the time of advertisement and application, led to the dismissal of the petitioner's claim fo....
The Court emphasized that the eligibility criteria for regularization under the Government of Mizoram Scheme must be strictly followed, particularly regarding age limits at initial engagement.
The TET qualification acquired prior to the recruitment process met the eligibility criteria, and the corrigendum clarified the age relaxation, warranting the consideration of the petitioner's appoin....
The court affirmed that special age limits for specific categories, like Ex-Servicemen, cannot be combined with general relaxations, maintaining the prescribed upper age of 50 years.
Where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as last date for filing applications, eligibility of candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone....
The relaxation of the upper age limit for government jobs is at the discretion of the State/Government and cannot be claimed as a matter of right by candidates of the EWS category.
The court established that amendments to recruitment rules are prospective and do not affect ongoing selection processes unless explicitly stated.
Contractual employees are entitled to age relaxation under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.