AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. M.D. Bora, learned standing counsel for the Transport Department.
By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioners is that pursuant to an advertisement
dated 13.08.1998, the petitioners had undertaken six months crew-training programme commencing from 01.03.1999 to 30.08.1999 and they hold
completion certificate.
The grievance of the petitioners is that since 1999, they had not received any employment. Accordingly, the petitioners had submitted a
representation for appointment against vacant posts of Crewman in the IWT, but having received no response, the petitioners had approached this
Court earlier by filing WP(C) 3760/2008 and this Court by order dated 08.09.2008, had disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to consider
and dispose of the representation dated 25.08.2008 on merit.
In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the order passed in WP(C) 3760/2008, the respondents have not
communicated as to whether any decision was taken on the representation dated 25.08.2008.
It is projected that Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department by a letter dated 30.10.2020 had informed the Director, IWT
(respondent no.3) that the Government had approved for filling up 113 numbers of vacant Grade-IV posts (Laskar and Greaser) under the respondent
no.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that although the respondent no.3 had submitted a list of crew trainees for consideration, but the proposal of
the respondent no. 3 was returned by a letter dated 27.01.2021 with a direction to re-submit the same showing the present age of the trained crews
and the period of age which is required to be relaxed with justification.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time the petitioners had not cross the maximum upper age limit to get Government
service, but due to passage of time, the petitioners have become overaged and therefore, the age was required to be relaxed for the purpose of
considering their case for employment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the notification dated 03.05.1951 which is with regard to
the relaxation of upper age limit.
The learned standing counsel for the respondents has referred to the representation dated 04.03.2021 annexed to this writ petition and it is submitted
that the respondent no. 3 by an office order dated 15.07.2021 had observed that the matter was premature and necessary action would be taken once
the advertisement is issued and accordingly, the joint representation submitted by the petitioners was disposed of.
The learned standing counsel has also referred to an office memorandum bearing no. ABP.6/2016/51 dated 02.09.2020 by which upper age limit for
entry into the State Government service for Grade-III and Grade-IV posts has been raised from existing 43 years up to 45 years. Clause 3 of the said
O.M. is quoted below:
“3. There shall be no change in the procedure of recruitment or any relaxation of educational or other qualification or service conditions such as
year or age of retirement, etc. This relaxation shall be applicable only to those candidates who have attained the necessary educational or other
qualifications prior to crossing of their existing upper age limit of 40 years. The application of this O.M. will also be limited to vacant posts for which
advertisements are made on or after the date of effect of this O.M.â€
Having taken note of the projection that the petitioners had completed their six months crew-training programme commencing from 01.03.1999 to
30.08.1999 and by an office order dated 30.08.1999, the name of the petitioners was included in the list of successful candidates who had being
released after training and that since then the petitioners were patiently waiting for being employed against the vacant posts of Laskar and Greaser in
the IWT Department and that they had submitted their representation immediately after coming to know that the State government had granted
approval for filling up 113 numbers of vacant Grade-IV posts (Laskar and Greaser) and submitted representation for relaxation of their age, the Court
is of the considered opinion that the State has set into motion the due process for filling up 113 numbers of vacant Grade-IV posts (Laskar and
Greaser).
Under such circumstances, notwithstanding that the respondent no.3 had disposed of the representation dated 04.03.2021 submitted by the
petitioners by an order dated 15.07.2021 as premature, the Court is inclined to direct that the life of the petitioners to seek relaxation of their upper age
is still alive and would not ceased by disposal of the said representation by order dated 15.07.2021 and their right would come into the force as and
when the employment advertisement is issued.
Having noticed the mandate of this Court in the case of Pranab Kumar Deka & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam and Ors., (2016) 1 GLR 391, the
Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to submit their fresh representation immediately after the employment
advertisement is issued and notwithstanding the disposal of the petitioners’ joint representation dated 04.03.2021 by office order no. DWT-
91/2021/101 dated 15.07.2021 by the respondent no.3, the said respondent no. 3 shall entertain the fresh representation of the petitioners and the said
authority shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and by taking into consideration the office O.M. No. ABP.6/2016/51 dated 02.09.2020
as well as the ratio of the above referred case of Pranab Kumar Deka (supra).
With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.
Instruction produced by the learned standing counsel is retained on record.