Absence Of Clear Guidelines For Recruitment Documents, Gauhati High Court Directs Appointment Of Applicant

Background Facts

An advertisement was published on 24th June 2020 for filling 344 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department (P&RD) of Assam. Out of these, 33 posts were reserved for candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. The petitioners, who belonged to the EWS category, applied for the posts and claimed to have been selected based on their performance. They alleged that despite being selected, they were not given appointments. Instead, candidates who secured lower marks than them in the final selection list were appointed.

The petitioners submitted EWS certificates to claim the reserved posts. However, their appointments were allegedly denied on the grounds that the EWS certificates they submitted were not valid for the financial year as required by the authorities. Despite securing marks higher than the cut-off, the petitioners were not given appointments.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the writ petition.

It was argued by the petitioners that the certificates were issued during the financial year 2019-2020, which was relevant to the recruitment process, and should have been accepted by the authorities. They claimed that the rejection of their EWS certificates on the grounds that they were not valid for the financial year as required was arbitrary and unjustified, as there was no clear guideline provided by the authorities regarding the exact timing and format of the EWS certificates. They emphasized that they had secured higher marks in the final selection list compared to several candidates who were eventually appointed.

It was further argued by the petitioners that since the concept of EWS reservations was introduced only in 2019 through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, there was ambiguity regarding the exact format and requirements for EWS certificates. They argued that the authorities should have provided clear guidelines on this matter, and in the absence of such guidelines, the rejection of their certificates was unwarranted.

On the other hand it was argued by the respondents that the petitioners' EWS certificates were not valid for the recruitment process because they were not issued during the appropriate financial year, as required by the rules. They contended that the recruitment advertisement explicitly required candidates to produce valid EWS certificates for the relevant financial year, and the petitioners' certificates did not meet this criterion.

It was asserted by the respondent that all appointments were made in accordance with the merit list and the valid documents submitted by the candidates. They argued that the guidelines regarding the issuance and submission of EWS certificates were clear and well-communicated.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the advertisement for the recruitment process clearly stated that the candidates must produce valid EWS certificates issued for the relevant financial year. It was further observed by the court that the advertisement did not specify a format for EWS certificates, only requiring that they be from the 2019-2020 financial year.

It was observed by the court that petitioners' EWS certificates, though dated within the financial year, were issued mid-year, leading to their rejection. It was observed that the EWS concept was new, and the certificate format was not provided until a 2022 advertisement. In absence of a clear-cut certificate format, the rejection of the certificates submitted by the petitioners cannot be termed as a reasonable approach, more so, when the concept itself was in a emerging stage.

The petition was ruled in favor of the petitioners. It was directed by the court that the petitioners be appointed as Junior Engineers in the P & RD Department. The aforesaid observation was however confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the EWS concept itself was in a very developing stage and there was no format of the certificate.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Case No. : WP(C)/6138/2022

Counsel for the Petitioners : KM Mahanta

Counsel for the Respondents : P. Nayak, SC-P&RD; T.C. Chutia, Addl. Sr. GA; PP Dutta, SC-APSC; RM Deka