Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010013742025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/348/2025 MINTUL SARMA S/O- LATE BHABENDRA NATH SARMA, R/O- 2 NO. MATHGHARIA, SANTINAGAR PATH, P.O./P.S.- NOONMATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781020 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DY. SECRETARY. TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM LABOUR WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER ASSAM OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER SHRAM BHAWAN ULUBARI GUWAHATI-0 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS N SAIKIA, MRS. P GOSWAMI,MR A SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : SR. GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM Page No.# 2/3 ORDER Date : 27-01-2025 Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondents. The writ petitioner herein is presently serving as Sr. Assistant in the office of the Labour Commissioner, Assam. As per relevant rules, viz. Assam Labour Services Rules, 1970, he is eligible for being promoted to the next higher post of Labour Inspector. However, in view of the amendment carried out in Rule 6(6), a new criterion has now been imposed to the effect that a candidate should not cross 45 years of age on the 1st day of the month of January in the year in which promotion is to be considered. In view of such upper age criteria, the petitioner will not be considered for promotion. Hence, this writ petition Ms. Saikia submits that in view of the upper age criteria her client, although entitled in all respect to be considered for promotion to the post of Labour Inspector and has more than 10 years of service left, would be debarred from participating in the promotional process thus causing serious prejudice and hardship to him. It is also the submission of Ms. Saikia that the department has already considered similar grievance expressed by as many as 17 candidates and relaxed their upper age limit for the purpose of considering their candidature for the post of Labour Inspector. Therefore, there is no valid ground as to why, similar approach should also not be adopted in case of the writ petitioner herein as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 10-01-2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of Page No.# 3/3 this Court in W.P.(C) No. 128/2025, whereby taking note of similar grievance expressed by another departmental candidate, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner therein to submit a representation for age relaxation with a further direction to consider the prayer. Mr. D. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam submits that he would have no objection if the present writ petition is also disposed of by granting similar liberty to the present petitioner. In view of the above and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of motion hearing by granting 03 weeks time to the petitioner to submit appropriate representation seeking relaxation of upper age limit. If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the same be considered objectively and be disposed of by a reasoned order, within a further period of 03 weeks thereafter. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE GS Comparing Assistant