GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 24 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 24:

1. We have heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned Advocate for the review petitioner. Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate/Standing Counsel, APSC are present.

2. The review petitioner has questioned the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.6574/2023 solely on the ground that it extinguishes his chance of being appointed as a Director/the highest office in his grade, as he is to retire shortly.

3. The petitioner had also questioned the advertisement dated 25.08.2023 and the Assam Economic and Statistical Service (Amendment) Rules, 1995 on the ground of the Rules being arbitrary and exclusionary and, therefore, the advertisement being bad in law.

4. The facts necessary to be stated here are that the review petitioner was appointed as a Statistical Officer in the year 1992; whereafter he was promoted to the post of Research Officer. He rose to the rank of Senior Research Officer; then joint Director; and later Additional Director with his seniority at Serial No.5 in the Gradation List.

5. In the meantime, an advertisement was issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (in short, APSC) on 25.08.2023 for selection to the post of Director of Economics and Statistics under the Transformation and Development Department, Government of Assam.

6. The Assam Economic and Statistical Service Rules, 1973 which held the field earlier, provided that the eligibility criteria for the candidates seeking appointment on the post of Director would be Masters in Economics, Statistics and Commerce. However, in the amended Rules of 1995, the stream of Commerce was left out; perhaps for the reason that it was wrongly included in the eligibility criteria as commerce is only a stream and not a subject in particular.

7. The advertisement in question dated 25.08.2023 had been issued much after the amended Rules of the year 1973.

8. The contentions of the petitioner were repelled by the impugned judgment, holding that taking a decision with respect to the eligibility criteria is in the domain of the Government/Recruiting Body in which there ought not to be any unnecessary interference by Courts.

9. So far as constitutionality of the amended Rules of 1973 is concerned, the judgment clearly postulates that the constitutionality of an Act could be questioned only on the grounds of legislative incompetence; or the Acts/Rules being violative of any provisions of the Constitution or for the reasons which have become redundant; or are arbitrary.

If it is found that the legislation falls foul of federal distribution of powers and contravenes the fundamental rights then only any interference by the Courts could be made.

10. The constitutionality of an Act/Rule cannot be questioned lightly and that also on the ground of that being to the detriment of an applicant who stands excluded from the zone of consideration because of the amended Rules. There is not an iota of doubt that the amended Rules were within the competence of the State legislature and, therefore, there is the presumption of constitutionality of the Rules in question.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xxDL0A%2BLJ5Q9NZAJMtBHGMr23EIlLinopnA3IL%2FCoL1u&caseno=Review.Pet./70/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010093832025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.