Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010091402023 2025:GAU-AS:12106-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2450/2023 1.SAURAV DAS AND 12 ORS S/O- KHAGEN DAS R/O- KEKENIKUCHI VILLAGE P. O - RANGIA, PIN - 781354, DIST- KAMRUP(M). 2: AMANJIT BURAGOHAIN S/O- AMRIT BURAGOHAIN R/O- VILLAGE - 1 NO JAGUNPATHAR P. O - DULIAJAN PIN - 7866023. DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM. 3: ASHISH GHOSH S/O-ANANDA GHOSH R/O- VILLAGE - RONGPUR PT IV SANTIPUR SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM P. O - SILCHAR PIN - 788009 4: PRANJIT KHAUND S/O-DILIP KHAUND R/O-SARUPATHAR BONGALI GAON P. O - RONGCHANGI PIN - 786184 5: RANTU MANI CHAUDHRY S/O- JABBARUDDIN CHAUDHRY R/O- NORTH BONGAON WARD NO. -2 P. O - RANGIA DIST- KAMRUP (ASSAM) PIN - 781354. 6: BHASKAR JYOTI BORA S/O- LOLIT CHANDRA BORAH R/O- MIDHAKHAT GAON TEOK P.O - TEOK PIN - 785112 DIST- JORHAT. 7: MANASH PROTIM BURAGOHAIN S/O- NAVA BURAGOHAIN R/O-VILL - BETBARI DA GAON P.O - MITHAPUKHURI PIN - 785697 DIST- JORHAT. 8: ABINASH KALITA S/O- ANIL KUMAR KALITA R/O-VILL - JOGIPARA P.O - GUWAHATI AIRPORT DIST - KAMRUP (M). PIN - 781015 Page No.# 2/10 9: DEEP HEMROM S/O- BIJOY HEMROM R/O- VILL - KOILABARI P.O - CHABUA DIST - DIBRUGARH PIN - 786184 10: PARTHA PRATIM KALITA S/O- RABIN KALITA R/O-VILL- KUWARITOL P.O - KUWARITOL DIST- NAGAON PIN-782137 11: PORAG BORPATRA GOHAIN S/O- SURESH BORPATRA GOHAIN R/O- JERAI GAON DIST - DIBRUGARH P.O- PANITOLA PIN- 786183 12: SHAMIN AHMED MOZUMDER S/O- JALAL UDDIN MOZUMDER R/O- MEHERPUR SILCHAR - 15 CACHAR ASSAM P.O - MEHERPUR PIN- 788015 13: MANASH JYOTI SARMA S/O- AMBIKA CHARAN SARMA R/O- BENGAPARA P.O- SARTHEBARI PIN-781307 DIST- BARPETA VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM-06. 2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION(APSC) JAWAHARNAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22 3:THE CHAIRMAN ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED(APDCL) BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01 KAMRUP(M) 4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01 KAMRUP(M Linked Case : WP(C)/3203/2023 1.PARTHA PRATIM KALITA AND 12 ORS S/O RABIN KALITA VILL-KUWARITOL P.O.-KUWARITOL PIN-782137 DIST-NAGOAN 2: MANASH JYOTI SARMA S/O AMBIKA CHARAN SARMA VILL-BENGAPARA P.O.-SARTHEBARI PIN-781307 DIST-BARPETA Page No.# 3/10 3: MONUJ GOGOI S/O JAGAT CH GOGOI VILL-RUPAI SIDING P.O.-RUPAISIDING PIN-786153 DIST-TINSUKIA 4: SURAJIT RAY S/O SUNIL CHAMDRA RAY VILL-GAURIPUR P.O.-GAURIPUR PIN-783331 DIST-DHUBRI 5: AMARJIT BURAGOHAIN S/O AMRIT BURAGOHAIN VILL- 1 NO. JAGUNPATHAR P.O.-DULIAJAN PIN-786620 DIST-DIBRUGHAR 6: ABINASH KALITA S/O ANIL KR. KALITA VILL-JOGIPARI P.O.-GUWAHATI AIRPORT PIN-781015 DIST-KAMRUP (R) 7: ASHISH GHOSH S/O ANANDA GHOSH VILL-RONGPUR PT 4 SANTIPARA P.O.-SILCHAR PIN-788009 DIST-CACHAR 8: DEEP HEMRON S/O BIJOY HEMROM VILL-KOLIABARI P.O.-CHABUA PIN-786184 DIST-DIBRUGARH 9: RITURAJ BORA S/O LT PUTUL BORA VILL-CHUNGAJAN P.O.-CHUNGAJAN PIN-785601 DIST-GOLAGHAT 10: BHASKAR JYOTI BORA S/O LOHIT CHAMDRA BORA VILL-MIDHAKHAT GAON P.O.-TEOK PIN-785112 DIST-JORHAT 11: TULAN JYOTI BARUAH S/O RABINATH BARUAH VILL-CHABUA P.O.-CHABUA PIN-786184 DIST-DIBRUGARH 12: ANKIT GOGOI S/O RUPAL GOGOI VILL-MADARKHAT T.E. P.O.-DIKOM PIN-786101 DIST-DIBRUGARH 13: BHAGYAJEET BARUAH S/O TAILUKYA BARUAH VILL-KAILABARI GAON P.O.-HATIALI PIN-786184 DIST-DIBRUGARH VERSUS Page No.# 4/10 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM-06 2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (APSC) JAWAHARNAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22 3:THE CHAIRMAN, ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION (AEGCL) BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01 KAMRUP (M) 4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION (AEGCL) BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01 KAMRUP (M) For Petitioners : Mr. B.P. Borah, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.N. Goswami, Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. K.P. Pathak, Standing Counsel, APDCL. : Mr. S. Kataki, Standing Counsel, AEGCL. : Mr. P. Saikia, Government Advocate, Assam. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 04.09.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL. Mr. P. Saikia, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, AEGCL are present. 2. The petitioners are aspirants for the post of Junior Manager Page No.# 5/10 (Electrical) in Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “APDCL”), which was advertised on 30.03.2023, but they were denied the opportunity of appearing in the recruitment examination for the reason of their not possessing 60% marks in the Diploma. 3. The restriction apparently flows from the proviso to Rule 8 of the APDCL Junior Managers’ Rules, 2012 which prescribes that only candidates who have secured a minimum of 60% marks in the Diploma would be eligible to appear in the written test. 4. The claim of the petitioners is that even though otherwise they are qualified as they have a Diploma, but they stand excluded from consideration solely due to percentage criteria. 5. The major ground of challenge put forth by the petitioners is that 60% eligibility condition is arbitrary, unreasonable and without rational basis. There is no reasonable nexus between securing 60% marks in Diploma examination and the efficient discharge of duties as a Junior Manager in the APDCL. There also does not exist, it has been argued, any intelligible differentia between the candidates who have scored 60% and those who have scored below, because both categories of aspirants would be holding the same Diploma qualification. 6. Considering the fact that the recruitment process against the advertisement of 30.03.2023 is over, the petitioners now have chosen to challenge the constitutionality of the APDCL Junior Managers’ Service Rules, 2012. 7. Mr. B.P. Borah, learned Advocate for the petitioners has drawn the Page No.# 6/10 attention of this Court to the Rules which have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Article 76(T) of the Articles of Association of APDCL. A “Junior Manager” has been defined in the Rules as a person appointed to the service as Junior Manager of the Company who has passed at least the High School Leaving Certificate Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam or any examination recognized by Government as equivalent thereto and who possesses at least 3(three) or 4(four) years’ Diploma in Electrical/Mechanical/Civil/Instrumentation/Electronics/Computer Science & Engineering/Telecommunication Engineering from any Institute recognized by the Government. There is prescription here of a Diploma holder having acquired 60% marks. 8. However, in Rule 8 which specifies the qualification for direct recruitment, it has been provided that a candidate securing a minimum aggregate marks of 60% or its equivalent in 3(three) years’ or 4(four) years’ Diploma in the respective branches of Engineering would only be eligible for admission to the written test, with 10% relaxation in case of Schedule Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates. 9. While challenging the constitutionality of such prescription for a candidate, at the threshold, to be able to appear in the recruitment process, it has been argued that it is a classification beyond permissible limits, which creates a sub-category of persons who have not scored 60% in Diploma, who would stand excluded. With this prescription, a vast majority of aspirants would stand excluded. 10. The sheet anchor of the argument of Mr. Borah is that such Page No.# 7/10 prescription is not reasonable by any standard and it also does not have a reasonable nexus with the technical staff quality which any employer would look for. It is a rigid percentage benchmark, creating a sub-classification within the Diploma holders, which is neither required nor warranted. 11. Academic marks do not necessarily co-relate with efficiency. If the employer desires to take in the service of the only meritorious candidates, it is not only the marks, which is important but the practical experience and the capabilities of the aspirant, who has the basic qualification, namely, a Diploma, which is the minimum required qualification for being appointed as Junior Manager of the Company. 12. Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, while animadverting to the afore-noted arguments, has submitted that this falls in the domain of policy of the Appointing Authority, which ought not to be questioned. Fixing a benchmark of minimum of 60% in Diploma is quite rational and in accordance with the prevalent practice in other Government companies and is definitely not arbitrary. Fixing a higher benchmark which is unreasonable could be objected but asking of 60% of the minimum marks for a candidate to appear in an examination is directly relatable to the object of recruitment of meritorious persons. It is only to ensure merit and not for excluding people. The very fact that the recruitment process, which was started with the advertisement on 30.03.2023 has been successfully completed with many aspirants having participated in the said process, it cannot be said that the prescription is too onerous, impacting the exclusion of a vast number of Diploma holders. The claim of the petitioners, therefore, Mr. Goswami asserts that a large number of people would be excluded because of this higher prescription in the Page No.# 8/10 Rules, is based on no empirical study. 13. On the contrary, it has been pointed out that similarly placed Government instrumentalities like, ONGC, OIL, Department of Atomic Energy and Assam Engineering Service Recruitment Board, in their advertisements, for recruitment have prescribed minimum percentage of marks on the higher side for appearing in the examination. 14. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Articles of Association of APDCL empowered the Board of Directors to frame Service Rules governing the condition of service of its employees in different services including Engineering Service. 15. The Board of Directors, in its meeting held on 15.10.2012, approved the APDCL Junior Managers’ Service Rules, 2012, which was notified. Since these Rules have been framed by a valid process and the APDCL Company, a State instrumentality, having the power to frame Rules for its recruitment, the constitutionality of such Rule cannot be questioned. The prescription of minimum of 60% of marks in Diploma is though on a higher side but it cannot be said to be inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 16. It is true that such decisions are in the domain of policy makers, falling in the realm of the powers conferred on the Board of Directors. Unless it is shown that the prescription in the advertisement is manifestly arbitrary or having no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, normally such decision making is not required to be interfered with. 17. Judicial precedents justify valid classification of higher educational qualification and the Rule making body could set a higher standard for the Page No.# 9/10 recruitment as only the employer knows what is required of its employees. 18. In Sanjay Kumar Manjul –Vs- Chairman, UPSC & Ors. :: (2006) 8 SCC 42, the Supreme Court has held that the qualifications for recruitment to a post are laid down in terms of the statutory rules. The statutory authority is entitled to frame the rules laying down the terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned which can take the ultimate decision thereof. 19. The jurisdiction of the Courts, it is trite, would be to interpret the rule but not to supplant or supplement the rule. It is well settled that the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily, would not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post. 20. Similarly, in Chandigarh Administration through the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh -Vs- Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors. :: (2011) 9 SCC 645, it has been categorically held that Courts can neither prescribe qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned, so long as qualifications prescribed are reasonably relevant and have a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provisions of the Constitution. 21. A higher benchmark of 60% in Diploma cannot, by any standard, be said to be arbitrary or exclusionary, especially, when such higher percentage is prescribed for recruitment in other Government agencies. That apart, we further reiterate even at the cost of repetition that in the recruitment process, referred to above, the respondent Company/ Page No.# 10/10 Corporation did not face any dearth of applicants and the process was successfully conducted. This is illustrative of the higher prescription/benchmark for appearing in the recruitment examination not being exclusionary. 22. Thus, finding that the Rule 8 of APDCL Junior Managers’ Service Rules, 2012 conforms to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, we do not find any merit in the challenge made by the petitioners on the ground that the Rules are violative of the provisions of the Constitution or are too onerous. 23. The writ petitions are thus dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant