Point of Law : If such eligibility criteria are to be determined on the date of actual consideration, it would be an unending process as in the meantime, many more candidates would acquire the eligibility and would make a stake for such appointment which would not be a reasonable interpretation at all.

JUDGMENT :

The issue which has arisen for determination before this Court in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertains to a recruitment process for the post of Administrative Officer which was initiated vide an advertisement dated 17.12.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Baksa.

2. The case, as projected by the petitioner, is that he is presently working in the cadre of Supervisory Assistant and was initially inducted in the service as an LDA-cum-Typist in the year 1991. The petitioner claims that he has about 30 years of service experience without any adverse remarks. The aforesaid recruitment process for the post of Administrative Officer had invited applications from candidates having 15 years of service in any establishment of the Deputy Commissioner in Assam and the last date for submission of the application was fixed on 18.01.2021.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that though four candidates had initially applied for the said post, after scrutiny, only two candidates had remained which included the petitioner and the respondent no. 5. The categorical case of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 5 was not eligible for consideration as he had not completed 15 years of service on the last date of submission of application. However, in spite of the same, not only the respondent no. 5 was considered, he was also selected vide the impugned order dated 30.07.2022. The petitioner has also contended that on merits, he is much above as he was also awarded best employee award on two consecutive years.

4. I have heard Shri SK Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, GAD for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Also heard Shri A Chakraborty, learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 as well as Shri A Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

5. Shri Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with regard to the eligibility of the writ petitioner, there is no dispute that he was eligible on all respects. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the various documents to establish his eligibility even with regard to the fact of having minimum 15 years of service experience in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner. By referring to the advertisement dated 17.12.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Baksa, it is contended that one of the mandatory conditions was that the aspiring candidate must have served at least 15 years in any of the Deputy Commissioner’s establishment in Assam and fulfilled the eligibility conditions and experience as per the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service (Amendment) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2009). The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the gradation list which has been annexed to the writ petition in which, the date of entry of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 5 has been clearly stated. As per the said gradation list of Grade-III Employees under the amalgamated establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari while the date of entry of the petitioner into Government service has been stated to be 21.02.1991, for the respondent no. 5, the said date is 26.02.2007. Shri Goswami, learned counsel, accordingly submits that the respondent no. 5 would not complete 15 years which is a part of the aforesaid advertisement as well as the Rules governing the field.

6. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Goswami has submitted that from paragraph 8 of the said affidavit-in-opposition dated 09.12.2022, it is revealed that the period of 15 years has been reckoned from the date of consideration of the case when the Selection Board had met i.e., 29.07.2022. A similar stand has also been taken by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in their affidavit-in-opposition dated 20.02.2023. Shri Goswami, learned counsel ha