GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 19 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 20:
1] Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, and Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned standing Counsel, APSC, for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
2] By way of the instant two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing, inter alia, the selection of the private respondents for promotion to the cadre of the Finance and Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer (FAO/TO), and the issues raised in both the writ petitions being identical, the same is taken up for final disposal by this common judgment & order.
3] The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1680/2019 is presently working in the cadre of the Accountant and posted at the Golaghat district, whereas the petitioner in WP(C) No.1683/2019 is presently working in the cadre of the Senior Accounts Assistant and posted at the Darrang district treasury. Pursuant to an advertisement issued on 20.02.2018 by the Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent APSC"), inviting applications for promotion for filling up of 34 posts of Finance and Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer (FAO/TO) in Class-I Grade-III cadre of the Assam Finance Service from the members belonging to the cadre of (i) Assam Accounts Service, (ii) Assam Local Fund Audit Service, & (iii) Assam Treasury (Estt.) Service Personnel, the petitioners, being eligible for the subject promotion, applied for the same. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared in the Departmental (Promotion) Examination, as held by the respondent APSC, pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement.
4] It is the specific case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities selected 9 (nine) candidates, out of which private respondent nos. 6 to 9, though they were overaged as per the recruitment rules, had their age relaxed and were selected illegally. Aggrieved thus, though representations were filed, the same having borne no fruits; the present writ petitions have been filed.
5] Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, submits that the overage of the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 was condoned in violation of the applicable recruitment rules and the law governing the field. In support of his submission, he relies upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Pranab Kumar Deka vs. State of Assam, reported in 2015 (4) GLT 103, and Amarjyoti Sarma vs. State of Assam, reported in 2018 (3) GLT 172. He further submits that out of the 9 (nine) successfully declared candidates, only 5 (five) candidates secured a pass mark of 130 in both the papers in the Departmental (Promotional) Examination, and 4 (four) candidates who secured 120 marks were further awarded with grace marks of 10 each. He accordingly submits that none of the candidates have secured the requisite 80 marks in each paper, i.e., 160 marks in both the papers as laid out in the recruitment rules. He further submits that the Finance Department has most arbitrarily, and to favour the private respondents has fixed the pass marks at 65 in each paper as against 80 in violation of the statutory rules.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62WrQMRzjd0g18IZPoP8sA3V9j45biKVEk%2B1wb9GNzb%2B62&caseno=WP(C)/1680/2019&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010053462019&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
