IMPORTANT POINT
The Court established that the absence of a specific EWS certificate format and the timing of the recruitment justified the acceptance of the petitioners' claims for appointment.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertains to a recruitment process for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department (hereinafter P & RD Department). The issue is with regard to the claim of the petitioners under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners are all qualified to be appointed in the aforesaid post of Junior Engineer (Civil). An advertisement was published on 24.06.2020 for filling up 344 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the P & RD Department. The said recruitment was to be done through the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). Out of the 344 total nos. of posts, 33 posts were reserved for EWS category. The petitioners claim to belong to the EWS category and had accordingly applied for the said posts. In the selection held, the petitioners claimed to have been selected. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of such selection, the petitioners have not been afforded the appointment and on the other hand, candidates who have secured less marks than the petitioners in the Final Select List dated 31.05.2022 have been given the appointment. The said candidates who have secured less mark than the petitioners are also made party respondents.

3. I have heard Shri KM Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department; Shri TC Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam; Shri PP Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, APSC and Shri RM Deka, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 7 to 28.

4. Shri Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, has submitted that though the writ petition was instituted by 7 nos. of petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 has been appointed elsewhere and is therefore not pressing her case. The learned counsel however clarifies that so far as petitioner nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, the cause of action is still surviving and they are pressing. It is submitted that the Constitution of India had undergone an Amendment being the 103rd Amendment whereby the concept of EWS was inserted. In this connection, reference has been made to Articles 15 (6) and 16 (6) of the Constitution. It is submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.06.2020, the petitioners had submitted their candidatures and there were two rounds of verification. The petitioners in support of their claim for EWS had submitted necessary certificates and accordingly list of candidates for verification of documents was prepared and the results were published by a select list.

5. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)/4441/2022 and this Court, vide order dated 29.06.2022 had directed that aggregate marks are to be indicated. Accordingly, on 29.07.2022, the aggregate marks were published. The petitioners had also obtained information under the Right to Information Act wherein the cut-off marks was revealed as 113.25 whereas all the petitioners claimed to have secured more than the cut-off marks. It is submitted that the certificates of the petitioners regarding EWS being properly verified, there was no scope on the part of the authorities to deny the appointment. By drawing the attention of this Court to one of the certificates pertaining to EWS, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the certificate was to be for a period of the previous financial year which was accordingly done and therefore he argues that there was no reason to deny the appointments.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that so far as the advertisement is concerned, the financial year is 2019-2020. Though the last date for submission of application was fixed on 24.07.2020, the same was extended to 30.08.2020. He has emphasized that there was no specific format with regard to the nature of the certificate for EWS to be