Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010115932016 2026:GAU-AS:12047 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4530/2016 MONUWARA BEGUM and ANR. D/O SRI ABUL HUSSAIN, R/O VILL. and P.O. AMLOKHI, P.S. BATRADRAVA, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM 2: RINU BORAH D/O LT. GOLAP CH. BORAH R/O GAYANGAON P.O. PATHARI DIST-NAGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM UZANBAZAR GHY-1 3:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER NAGAON P.O. AMOLAPATTY VIA NAGAON P.O. DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 4:ILAWATI BARUAH C/O WEST I.C.D.S. PROJECT O/O THE C.D.P.O. P.O. BOKAKHAT Page No.# 2/13 DIST- GOLAGHAT PIN-785705 5:BIJULI BORA C/O PASCHIM KALIABOR ICDS PROJECT O/O THE C.D.P.O. P.O.MISA DIST- NAGAON PIN-782138 6:DIPALI BORA C/O RUPAHI I.C.D.S. PROJECT O/O THE CDPO P.O.SAMAGURI DIST- NAGAON PIN-782140 7:SAJIASULTANA BEGUM SARMAH C/O KAPILI ICDS PROJECT BARAPUZIA O/O THE CDPO P.O. BARAPUZIA DIST- MORIGAON PIN-782103 8:ABANTI DAS THE THEN CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE PRESENTLY PROGRAMME OFFICER DIVISIONAL PROGRAMME OFFICE USHANAGAR P.O. and P.S. SONITPUR DIST- SONITPUR PIN-78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R KARIM, MR. S K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DR. B AHMED (R-4-7), MRH I CHOUDHURY(R-4-7),MR.I CHOUDHURY(R-4-7),SC, SOCIAL WELFARE Page No.# 3/13 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 20.08.2026 Heard Mr. S K Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. J K Goswami, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. I Choudhury, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. 2. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners have assailed the selection and appointment of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, as Supervisors in the district of Nagaon, on the ground that on the date when the said Respondents were so appointed, they had already crossed the upper age limit, prescribed for such appointment. 3. The Petitioners, in the present Writ Petition, along with Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 , had, in pursuance to a notice issued in the month of January, 2005, inter alia, inviting applications for recruitment against the posts of Supervisor, had submitted their respective applications. It is projected in the Writ Petition that the Respondent authorities had determined the vacancies in the cadre of Supervisor, district wise, and for the district of Nagaon, wherein, the Petitioners and the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, had submitted their respective applications, 13 (Thirteen) posts of Supervisor was so Page No.# 4/13 identified to be filled up by way of direct recruitment in the recruitment exercise that was initiated, vide, the said notice dated January, 2005. The Petitioners projects that in pursuance to the said selection process, a merit list came to be published in the matter and therein, Roll Nos. of 52 (Fifty-Two) candidates, including the Petitioners and the private Respondents, herein, came to be incorporated. The Petitioners have further projected that in pursuance to the said recruitment exercise, although only 13 (Thirteen) posts were identified for the district of Nagaon, in the cadre of Supervisor, the Respondent authorities had proceeded to effect appointments beyond the said 13 (Thirteen) posts so determined and in total of 49 (Forty-Nine) candidates came to be appointed in the matter. The Petitioners, who were placed at Sl. No. 50 & 51 in the said select list, however, were not favoured with an appointment. 4. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners had approached this Court by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 5436/2006. The said Writ Petition, along with other analogous matters, was given a final consideration by this Court, vide order dated 14.12.2010. This Court, on a consideration of the issues arising therein, had granted liberty to the Petitioners to approach the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, by an appropriate representation highlighting their grievances, if any. It was Page No.# 5/13 further provided that in the event of submission of such representation, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, shall pass speaking orders, thereon, within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the representation. It is projected that the Petitioners submitted their respective representations. However, the same was not considered by the Respondent authorities. 5. The Petitioners, in the present Writ Petition, have brought on record a communication dated 21.04.2015, issued by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, wherein, it was projected that the Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7, herein, on the date they were so considered for the post in question, in pursuance to the advertisement dated January, 2005, had crossed the upper age limit, as prescribed in the matter. The Petitioners, accordingly, projected that there being no condonation of the over-age and the Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7, their appointments being in violation of the procedure, prescribed, the same would mandate an interference by this Court, with a further direction for appointment of the Petitioners against the post so becoming vacant on the interference being made with the appointment of the Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7. 6. Mr. S K Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that from the Page No.# 6/13 materials brought on record, it is clear that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, on the date they had submitted their respective applications, in pursuance to the notice dated January, 2005, for recruitment against the post of Supervisor, had crossed the upper age limit prescribed for appointment against the said post. Mr. S K Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that no order has been brought on record by the Respondent authorities, as well as, by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, to demonstrate that their such over-age, was so condoned by the competent authority. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appointment, effected in respect of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, would mandate an interference from this court. 7. Mr. J K Goswami, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, has fairly submitted that there is no record available of any condonation of the over-ages of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, being so effected. Accordingly, he submits that the appointments, effected, in respect of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, were so effected after they had crossed the upper age limit for such selection and appointment. 8. Mr. I Choudhury, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, has also submitted that there is no order condoning the over age of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. He, however, submits that the Page No.# 7/13 said over-age of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, was permissible to be so condoned, however, no order, in this connection, is available on records. 9. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. At this outset, this Court notices that the present Writ Petition was pending in the records of this Court, since the year 2016. The State Respondents were given repeated opportunities to file their response in the matter. However, in spite of the said position, no response was filed by the said Respondents. Today, Mr. J K Goswami, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, has submitted that an affidavit on behalf of the State Respondents, was filed in the matter. The conduct of the Respondents reveals that they have no regard for the directions passed by this Court and are least bothered to place the stand of the State Respondents before this Court, in proceedings, pending before this Court, which leads to an abnormal delay in adjudication of the proceedings, which is not desirable. 11. The Respondent authorities, vide an advertisement published in the month of January, 2005, had sought applications from eligible candidates for recruitment against the vacant posts of Supervisors available in various districts of the State. The Petitioners, as well as the Page No.# 8/13 private Respondents, herein, being eligible for such recruitment, had submitted their respective applications. The Selection Scrutiny Committee, as constituted in the matter, thereafter, had identified the vacancies in the cadre of Supervisor meant for being filled up for by way of direct recruitment. In the present proceedings, this Court is concerned with the post of Supervisor, as identified for the district of Nagaon. For the district of Nagaon, 13 (Thirteen) posts of Supervisor were so identified. 12. On conclusion of the selection process, a select list came to be published and therein, names of 52 (Fifty Two) candidates, including the Petitioners, herein, and the private Respondents were so incorporated. This Court finds that after the publication of the said select list, 49 (Forty Nine) persons from the said select list came to be appointed as Supervisors in the district of Nagaon. Although the identification was made initially only for recruitment against 13 (Thirteen) posts of Supervisor in Nagaon, but it is found that 49 (Forty- Nine) persons came to be appointed as Supervisors in the district of Nagaon, in pursuance to the said recruitment exercise. The private Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, were appointed against posts, beyond the 13 (Thirteen) posts initially identified for the district of Nagaon. 13. The present Petitioners being aggrieved by their exclusion, Page No.# 9/13 as they were placed on Sl. Nos. 50 & 51, in the select list and persons above them being already appointed, had approached this Court by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 5436/2006. A coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 14.12.2010, on noticing the issues arising in the said Writ Petition, had disposed of the said Writ Petition, requiring the Petitioners, therein, to approach the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, by way of appropriate representation highlighting their grievances. The Director of Social Welfare, Assam, was directed to pass speaking orders, with regard to the grievance raised by the Petitioners, therein. 14. From the materials available on record, this Court finds that no speaking order came to be issued by the then Director of Social Welfare, Assam, in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court. From the materials brought on record, this Court also finds that the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, on an enquiry made, with regard to the eligibility of the private Respondents, herein, for being appointed as Supervisors, had opined that the private Respondents, along with 2 (Two) others, had crossed their upper age limit at the time of their selection. 15. This Court, from the materials brought on record and the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Parties, finds that, Page No.# 10/13 admittedly, the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 had crossed the upper age limit on the date when they were so selected for appointment as Supervisors. There being no order condoning the over-age of the said Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, mere existence of Office Memorandums, permitting condoning of such over-ages, would be of no consequence and the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are to be held to have been not eligible for being appointed as Supervisors. Further, this Court finds that for appointing 49 (Forty-Nine) persons as Supervisors, although only 13 (Thirteen) posts were identified in the cadre of Supervisor for appointment, by way of direct recruitment, in the district of Nagaon, no policy decision, adopted in this connection, has been brought on record by the Respondent authorities. It is a settled position of law, that appointments beyond the advertised posts, cannot be effected. As the Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate has already admitted that there is no order passed towards condoning the over-age of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and the same has also been affirmed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, this Court is of the considered view that the appointments, effected, in respect of the selection and appointment of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were not so effected by following the procedure mandated in this connection. However, the manner in which the services of Respondents No. 4 to 7, is Page No.# 11/13 now to be dealt with, shall be considered later in this order. 16. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court finds that the select list was published on 11.11.2005. The first proceeding was instituted by the Petitioners, herein, in the year 2006, which was within a period of 1 (One) year, w.e.f the date of publication of the select list. Although this Court had disposed of the Writ Petition, giving a period of 1 (one) month to the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, to dispose of the representations filed by the Petitioners, this Court does not find that the Petitioners, on their representations not being disposed of within a period of 1 (one) month, had approached this Court by way of filing a Contempt Petition, alleging violation of the directions passed by this Court. Accordingly, the said select list, cannot be held to be subsisting on the date the Petitioners had instituted the present Writ Petition. 17. This Court, having held that the select list in question, was not subsisting on the date when the present Writ Petition was so instituted, no vested right is found to exist in the Petitioners in the present proceedings, to claim appointment against the post of Supervisor only on account of the fact that their names were also included in the select list. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no direction can be issued to the Respondent authorities to effect appointments in respect of the Petitioners, herein, from the said Page No.# 12/13 select list, inasmuch as, the select list, admittedly, was not subsisting on the date when the present Writ Petition was so instituted. 18. Reverting back to the case of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, this Court finds that the said Respondents have been working against the posts since their recruitment in the year 2005. Mr. I Choudhury, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, submits that barring one of the Respondents, all other Respondents have also superannuated from their services. 19. This Court having held that no direction can be issued for appointment of the Petitioners against the post of Supervisor involved in the matter, this Court would now consider as to the manner in which the services of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 is to be so dealt with. This Court had found that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, were not eligible for being appointed against the post of Supervisor on the ground that they were already over-aged for the said purpose. However, this Court notices that the said irregularities existing in respect of the appointment effected in the case of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 is curable one, inasmuch as, the Competent Authority of the Department had the jurisdiction to condone the said delay. The long continuation of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in their respective services, after their initial appointment, would go to reveal that the over-age of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 was deemed to Page No.# 13/13 have been condoned by the Respondent authorities. Further, the Respondents, having discharged their duties since the date of their initial appointment for a long period of time, this Court is of the considered view that it would be iniquitous to terminate their services only on the ground that they were over-aged at the time of their initial recruitment. Accordingly, this Court refrains from setting aside the selection and appointment of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, at this juncture. However, this Court records its dissatisfaction in the manner in which the selection and appointment was so conducted and also the manner in which the Respondents had conducted the present Writ Petition. This Court only hopes and trusts that in future, the departmental authorities would be more prompt in responding to the proceedings before this Court. 20. For the reasons assigned, hereinabove, the present Writ Petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant