Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040003752025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/102/2025 Anjan Rinya Son of Shri Tachuk Rinya, resident of Tato Village, PO and PS Tato, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh. 791003 VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Power Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Shi Yomi District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Chief Managing Director Age: 0 Occupation : North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd (NEEPCO) Brookland Compound Lower New Colony Shillong 793003 Meghalaya India 5:The Deputy General Manager (HR) Age: 0 Occupation :
Page No.# 2/4 Tato-II NEEPCO Ltd Camp Tato Shi Yomi District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Reken Ingo, Tali Umbey,Jumken Ete,Kipa Yabi,Aruna Rai,S D Loda Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC(Power),Lissing Perme
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
ORDER Date : 12.03.2025 Heard Mr. R. Ingo, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that by filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his candidature for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), which was advertised on behalf of the NEEPCO by the Deputy Commissioner, Shi-Yomi District, Tato, vide circular dated 06.02.2025. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is 37 years of age as of today, he has an apprehension that his application for the said post will be rejected for being over-aged. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has tried his best to obtain necessary information from the respondent authorities concerned, but the information could not be given to the petitioner as sought for. The learned counsel also submits that since the maximum age limit prescribed for participating in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Combined Competitive Examination is 40 years for Arunachal Pradesh Schedule Tribe (APST) and therefore, the upper age limit prescribed by
Page No.# 3/4 the said circular ought to have been 40 years. The learned counsel submits that although a representation was submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Shi-Yomi District, Tato, but the same has not been considered till date. He submits that a registered society, namely, the Boh Ramo Bokar Welfare Society (BRBWS), made a representation before the NEEPCO authorities for making certain consideration for the Schedule Tribe(ST) applicants including the job reservation and upper age limit relaxation on 28.02.2025, but the same has also not been considered. Having no alternative, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the circular dated 06.02.2025 has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Shi-Yomi District, on the requisitioned made by the NEEPCO authorities. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Shi Yomi District may be directed to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner. However, since it is the NEEPCO who had made the requisition in terms of the letter dated 13.12.2025, the petitioner ought to have submitted his representation to the NEEPCO authorities, i.e., the Chief Manager (Human Resource), NEEPCO. 4. Having regard to the apprehension made by the petitioner that his application will be rejected and also considering the fact that the selection process is likely to commence soon, the petitioner is given liberty to file a representation with his prayer for relaxation of age before the Chief Manager (Human Resource), NEEPCO within a period of 7(seven) days from today.
Upon receipt of such representation, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same by way of a speaking order, as expeditiously as possible and before further process of recruitment is undertaken, in terms of the circular
Page No.# 4/4 dated 06.02.2025. 5. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant