Page No.# 1/18 GAHC010285002025 2026:GAU-AS:14372 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7395/2025 SHAHID REHMAN MAZUMDER SON OF LATE SAMSUR UDDIN MAZUMDER RESIDENT OF - TARAPUR PART-VI POST OFFICE-TARAPUR DISTRICT-CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN JAWAHARNAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM 781022 4:THE UNDER SECRETARY ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION JAWAHARNAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM 781022 Page No.# 2/18 5:THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION JAWAHARNAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM 781022 6:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N A MAZARBHUIYA, MR N A MAZARBHUIYA,MR. A R BHUYAN,MR N Z CHOUDHURY,A S CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, APSC,SC, P AND R.D. :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : 28.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : N/A Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N. A. Mazarbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, APSC assisted by Ms. P. Sharma, learned Page No.# 3/18 counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 as well as Ms. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 6. 2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner assails the rejection of his candidature for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam, pursuant to Advertisement No. 03/2020 dated 24.06.2020 issued by the Assam Public Service Commission, on the ground that the Income & Asset Certificate submitted by him under the EWS category was not valid for the relevant period. 3. By an advertisement dated 24.06.2020, the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) invited applications for 344 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the P&RD Department, with 35 posts reserved for candidates belonging to the EWS category. The petitioner submitted his application and his name appeared in the list of accepted applications at Serial No. 568, Roll No. 10568. He thereafter participated in the Screening Test and, having qualified, was called for document verification on 25.04.2022. At the time of document verification, he produced, amongst other documents, an Income & Asset Certificate as required to be produced by Economically Weaker Sections bearing Certificate No. SCL(CO).3/EWS/2019/607 dated 30.11.2019, issued by the Circle Officer, Sadar Revenue Circle, Silchar, which stated that it was valid for the financial year 2019-2020. 4. The final result of the selection process was published on 31.05.2022. The petitioner did not find place in the final select list. He thereafter sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the information furnished by the APSC disclosed that his candidature had been rejected on the ground that the validity of his EWS certificate had expired. His marks in the Page No.# 4/18 Screening Test were 77.25 in General Studies and 50.25 in Civil Engineering. 5. The petitioner had, even before receiving the aforesaid information under the RTI Act, approached this Court along with another candidate by filing WP(C) No. 4441/2022, questioning, inter alia, the manner in which the result of the recruitment process had been published. In the said proceeding, this Court, by order dated 29.06.2022, directed the APSC to issue a corrigendum to the result dated 31.05.2022 by indicating the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates, while maintaining the result already declared. Pursuant thereto, the aggregate marks were published on 29.07.2022. The petitioner claims to have secured 127.50 marks, whereas the cut-off for the EWS category was 113.25 marks. 6. The petitioner relies upon the judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 6138/2022, wherein similarly situated candidates participating in the very same recruitment process had questioned the rejection of their candidatures under the EWS category relating to their EWS certificates. This Court, having regard to the circumstances in which the EWS category had been introduced and the absence of a prescribed format in the advertisement, directed that the benefit of EWS be granted to the petitioners therein by accepting their certificates and directed their appointment against the existing vacancies without disturbing the appointments of the private respondents. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.08.2024, the APSC issued Notification No. 122PSC/CON/Exam-02/2020-2021 dated 18.08.2025 recommending six of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6138/2022 for appointment. The petitioner claims that one of those candidates, namely Ajar Uddin Laskar, had produced an EWS certificate in the same format as the certificate produced Page No.# 5/18 by the petitioner herein. The petitioner has further stated that seven vacancies were available in the EWS category and, after the recommendation of six candidates pursuant to the judgment dated 28.08.2024, one vacancy continues to remain available. He has also stated that no subsequent recruitment process for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the P&RD Department has taken place. 8. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation before the Secretary, APSC on 08.11.2025 seeking consideration of his candidature in the light of the judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 6138/2022. The representation was also sent through India Post on 01.12.2025. As no decision was taken thereon, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 9. Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature on the ground that his EWS Income & Asset Certificate was not valid for the relevant period is unsustainable. It is contended that the certificate was issued by the competent revenue authority and certified the petitioner's eligibility for the financial year 2019-2020. Learned Senior Counsel, submits that the advertisement dated 24.06.2020 did not prescribe any particular format of EWS Income & Asset Certificate and did not put the candidates to notice that a certificate issued by the competent authority, indicating its validity for the financial year 2019-2020, would nevertheless be rejected on the ground that the income particulars considered by the issuing authority related to the preceding financial year. 10. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the manner in which the EWS category was introduced and implemented at the relevant point of time Page No.# 6/18 is also material. It is contended that the 103rd Constitutional Amendment had come into force on 14.01.2019, whereas the advertisement in question was issued on 24.06.2020. Learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court, while dealing with the very same recruitment in WP(C) No. 6138/2022, vide judgment and order dated 28.08.2024, had taken note of the absence of any prescribed format for the EWS certificate in the advertisement and the circumstances in which the EWS certificates were being issued during the relevant period. The coordinate Bench, having considered the matter in that context, directed acceptance of the EWS certificates of the petitioners therein and their consideration for appointment against the existing vacancies. 11. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner's case is on the same footing as that of the candidates who obtained relief in WP(C) No. 6138/2022, there being no material distinction in the recruitment process, the advertisement, the nature of the EWS certificates or the ground on which the candidature was rejected. It is further contended that the subsequent action of the APSC pursuant to the said judgment reinforces the petitioner's claim, particularly as Ajar Uddin Laskar, petitioner No. 6 in the said proceeding, who had produced an EWS certificate in the same format, was subsequently recommended by the APSC by Notification dated 18.08.2025. It is submitted that the respondents have not demonstrated any material distinction between the case of the said candidate and that of the petitioner. 12. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner's candidature was otherwise competitive on merit. His aggregate marks, after the corrigendum issued pursuant to the order dated 29.06.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 4441/2022, were 127.50, as against the EWS cut-off of 113.25 marks. It is contended that Page No.# 7/18 the petitioner was, therefore, not seeking relaxation of the merit requirement, but only consideration of his candidature under the EWS category after acceptance of the certificate produced by him. Learned Senior Counsel submits that candidates who had secured lower marks were recommended/selected, whereas the petitioner's candidature was excluded on the ground relating to the certificate. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in response to the objection of delay, submits that the petitioner cannot be treated as a fence-sitter, having regard to the fact that he had already approached this Court in WP(C) No. 4441/2022, in connection with the very same recruitment process. It is contended that the petitioner had also sought information under the RTI Act and had pursued the matter after the declaration of the result. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Nirmal Chandra Biswas v. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 9493, wherein, while considering the principle relating to similarly situated persons and the exception applicable to fence-sitters, took note of the fact that the petitioner therein had himself approached the Court in relation to the same grievance and, therefore, could not be treated at par with a person who had remained inactive and sought to avail the benefit of the relief obtained by another person. It is submitted that, in the present case also, the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in relation to the very same recruitment process before the candidates in WP(C) No. 6138/2022 obtained relief, and therefore his case cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he has approached this Court at a later stage. 14. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the subsequent delay in approaching Page No.# 8/18 this Court has also been explained by the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel refers to the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner following the death of his father, his responsibility towards his family and the illness of his mother, and submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor an abandonment of the petitioner's claim. It is contended that the petitioner continued to pursue the matter and, after the judgment dated 28.08.2024 in WP(C) No. 6138/2022 was acted upon, submitted his representation before the APSC seeking similar consideration. 15. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the relief sought would not unsettle the appointments already made. The petitioner has placed on record that seven vacancies were available in the EWS category and that six candidates were subsequently recommended pursuant to the judgment dated 28.08.2024, leaving one vacancy. It is contended that no subsequent recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the P&RD Department has taken place and, therefore, consideration of the petitioner's candidature against the available vacancy would not prejudice the persons already appointed. 16. Learned Senior Counsel accordingly submits that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature, despite the certificate having been issued by the competent authority, the absence of any prescribed certificate format in the advertisement, the petitioner's marks being above the EWS cut-off and the subsequent treatment of similarly situated candidates, amounts to unequal treatment and violates the guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Learned Senior Counsel accordingly seeks a direction to the respondents to accept and verify the petitioner's EWS certificate and consider Page No.# 9/18 his candidature for appointment against the available EWS vacancy in accordance with his merit and subject to fulfilment of the other prescribed conditions. 17. Mr. K. Konwar, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD, for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, submits that the present writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is submitted that the final result of the selection process was declared on 31.05.2022, whereas the present writ petition has been instituted only in 18.12.2025. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner, having allowed the matter to remain unattended for more than three years, cannot seek to reopen the selection process at this stage. 18. Learned Standing Counsel, P&RD, places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, and submits that a person who has remained silent and allowed the position to settle cannot subsequently seek the benefit of a judgment obtained by another candidate. It is contended that the principle relating to fence-sitters applies to the present case and that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the candidates who had approached this Court in WP(C) No. 6138/2022. 19. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel and Standing Counsel, APSC, submits that the petitioner's EWS Income & Asset Certificate bearing No. SCL(CO).3/EWS/2019/607 dated 30.11.2019, though stated to be valid for the financial year 2019-2020, did not satisfy the requirements applicable to the recruitment. It is submitted that under the Government instructions governing EWS certificates, the income for the relevant financial year is to be assessed with reference to the preceding financial year and, in the case of the petitioner, Page No.# 10/18 the certificate was based upon the income particulars of the financial year 2018- 2019. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the certificate was, therefore, not a valid certificate for the purpose of the recruitment pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.06.2020. 20. Learned Standing Counsel, APSC, further submits that the judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 6138/2022 was rendered in the peculiar facts of those cases and cannot be treated as conferring an automatic right upon every candidate whose candidature had been rejected on account of the EWS certificate. More so, the said judgment is not in rem but in personam. It is submitted that the petitioner's case is further distinguishable on account of the considerable delay in approaching this Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., (2015) 1 SCC 347 and Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley & Ors., (2024) 15 SCC 215, to contend that while similarly situated persons may ordinarily be entitled to similar treatment, such principle is subject to considerations of delay, laches, acquiescence and the conduct of the person seeking relief. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the subsequent judgment merely on the ground that he had participated in the same selection process. 21. Learned Standing Counsel, APSC, further submits that the petitioner's candidature was not found acceptable under the EWS category and that he had not secured the requisite merit for consideration against the unreserved category. It is, therefore, submitted that no direction can now be issued requiring the APSC to reconsider the petitioner's candidature after such lapse of time. Page No.# 11/18 22. Ms. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 6, adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents P&RD and the APSC. 23. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 24. The present case arises out of the recruitment process initiated by Advertisement No. 03/2020 dated 24.06.2020 for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the P&RD Department. The petitioner participated in the selection as an EWS candidate and produced an Income & Asset Certificate issued by the competent revenue authority, which stated that it was valid for the financial year 2019-2020. His candidature was subsequently rejected on the ground relating to the validity of the certificate. The petitioner now seeks consideration of his candidature in the light of the judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 6138/2022, which arose out of the same recruitment process and concerned rejection of EWS certificates in similar circumstances. 25. Essentially, the objection of the respondents is with regard to of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. However, same cannot be considered merely by comparing the date of the result with the date on which the present writ petition was instituted. The final result was published on 31.05.2022 and the present writ petition was filed in December, 2025. Ordinarily, such a lapse of time would require the conduct of the petitioner to be examined. The record, however, shows that the petitioner had already approached this Court in WP(C) No. 4441/2022, in connection with the very same recruitment process. 26. In the said proceeding, this Court directed the APSC to issue a Page No.# 12/18 corrigendum to the result dated 31.05.2022 by indicating the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates, while maintaining the result already declared. Pursuant thereto, the aggregate marks were published on 29.07.2022. The petitioner had also sought information under the RTI Act concerning the rejection of his candidature. These circumstances show that the petitioner had taken steps soon after the declaration of the result and had not remained wholly inactive until the judgment was rendered in favour of the candidates in WP(C) No. 6138/2022. 27. The principle governing delay and laches in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Gopal (supra). Though no fixed period of limitation is prescribed for invoking the writ jurisdiction, unreasonable delay and the conduct of the person approaching the Court are relevant considerations. The Court has also cautioned against granting relief to a person who has remained inactive and seeks to take advantage of litigation pursued by others. Similar principles were noticed in Arvind Kumar Srivastava (Supra). 28. The present petitioner, on the facts available on record, cannot be placed in the same category as a person who took no steps after the selection process and approached the Court only after another candidate obtained relief. His earlier writ petition arose from the same recruitment process and was instituted before the judgment dated 28.08.2024 in WP(C) No. 6138/2022. He thereafter pursued information concerning his candidature and, following the subsequent recommendation made pursuant to the said judgment, submitted a representation dated 08.11.2025 before approaching this Court. 29. The distinction between a claimant who had earlier invoked the judicial Page No.# 13/18 process and one who had remained inactive and sought to avail the benefit of relief obtained by another requires to be considered carefully. In the present case, the earlier proceeding instituted by the present petitioner, though concerning the publication of the result and not specifically the EWS certificate, remains a relevant circumstance in examining the principle of fence-sitting. The time taken by the petitioner in pursuing the present claim has also to be viewed in the context of the subsequent developments. After the judgment dated 28.08.2024 in WP(C) No. 6138/2022, the APSC issued Notification No. 122PSC/CON/Exam-02/2020-2021 dated 18.08.2025 recommending six candidates pursuant to the said judgment. The petitioner thereafter submitted his representation dated 08.11.2025 seeking similar consideration. In the circumstances noticed above, the delay, by itself, cannot operate as a bar to examination of the petitioner’s claim. 30. The claim of the petitioner must then be seen in the context of the EWS certificate produced by him and the manner in which the same recruitment process was dealt with in WP(C) No. 6138/2022. The petitioner produced Certificate No. SCL(CO).3/EWS/2019/607 dated 30.11.2019, issued by the Circle Officer, Sadar Revenue Circle, Silchar, which stated that it was valid for the financial year 2019-2020. The certificate was thus issued by the competent revenue authority and was produced at the stage of document verification. 31. The advertisement dated 24.06.2020 did not prescribe any particular format for the Income & Asset Certificate to be produced by an EWS candidate. This circumstance assumes particular importance in view of the judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 6138/2022, which arose out of the very same recruitment process. The coordinate Bench noticed that the EWS Page No.# 14/18 category had been introduced only recently and that the advertisement did not prescribe a particular format for the certificate. In that factual setting, the rejection of the certificates was not sustained and the candidates were directed to be considered for appointment against the existing vacancies without disturbing the appointments already made. 32. The circumstance of the present petitioner is materially connected with the same difficulty. His certificate records its validity for the financial year 2019- 2020, and there was no prescribed form in the advertisement against which the certificate was required to be tested. The rejection, therefore, cannot be sustained merely by applying a requirement relating to the form or manner of issuance of the certificate which was not made sufficiently clear to the candidates at the time of the recruitment. 33. The objection relating to the financial year also does not, in the facts of the present case, furnish a sufficient basis to sustain the rejection. The certificate itself specifies the financial year 2019-2020. The fact that the income particulars forming the basis of an EWS certificate may relate to the preceding financial year, in the circumstances of the present case, cannot by itself render the certificate invalid for the financial year mentioned therein. More importantly, the recruitment was undertaken at a time when the EWS framework was still relatively new and the advertisement did not prescribe the particular format or manner in which such certificate was required to be produced. 34. The subsequent treatment of candidates in the same recruitment further supports the above conclusion as pursuant to the judgment dated 28.08.2024, the APSC issued Notification No. 122PSC/CON/Exam-02/2020-2021 dated 18.08.2025 recommending six candidates in whose favour relief had been Page No.# 15/18 granted by this Court. One of the candidates so recommended, namely Ajar Uddin Laskar, had produced exactly same EWS certificate in the same format as that produced by the petitioner. No material has been placed before the Court demonstrating any substantive distinction between the two certificates which would justify different treatment. 35. The petitioner’s merit position is another relevant circumstance. Pursuant to the order dated 29.06.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 4441/2022, the aggregate marks were published on 29.07.2022. The petitioner secured 127.50 marks, whereas the EWS cut-off was 113.25 marks. His claim, therefore, does not involve any relaxation of the prescribed merit standard. His exclusion was on account of the certificate and not on account of failure to secure the requisite marks. 36. The principle of parity, nevertheless, cannot mean that every candidate who participated in the same recruitment would automatically become entitled to the benefit of a judgment rendered in favour of another. The relevant consideration is whether there is a material distinction which would justify different treatment. In the present case, the petitioner participated in the same selection, produced an EWS certificate issued by the competent authority, secured marks above the EWS cut-off and was excluded on a certificate-related ground which was subsequently examined by this Court in relation to the same recruitment. 37. In this context, Arvind Kumar Srivastava (Supra) in my view does not operate against the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised the general principle that similarly situated persons should ordinarily receive similar treatment, while also recognising the exception in cases involving delay, Page No.# 16/18 acquiescence or fence-sitting. The present petitioner had already approached this Court in relation to the recruitment before the judgment in WP(C) No. 6138/2022 was delivered. His conduct, viewed as a whole, is materially different from that of a person who remained inactive and sought relief only after another candidate succeeded. 38. The relief granted in WP(C) No. 6138/2022 was also appropriately moulded so as not to disturb appointments already made. The candidates therein were directed to be considered against the existing vacancies. The same approach can be adopted in the present case. The petitioner would thus be entitled to consideration of his candidature on the same basis, without creating any occasion to unsettle appointments already made pursuant to the recruitment process. 39. Record reveals that seven vacancies were available in the EWS category and that, after six candidates were recommended pursuant to the judgment dated 28.08.2024, one vacancy remains available. No subsequent recruitment process for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the P&RD Department has taken place. There is no material before the Court to indicate that consideration of the petitioner’s candidature would require displacement of any candidate already appointed. 40. As noted above, the facts, taken together, show that the petitioner participated in the same recruitment process as the candidates who obtained relief in WP(C) No. 6138/2022; produced an EWS certificate issued by the competent revenue authority for the financial year 2019-2020; was subjected to rejection on a certificate-related ground in an advertisement which did not prescribe a particular format; secured marks above the EWS cut-off; and had Page No.# 17/18 already approached this Court in relation to the same recruitment soon after the result was declared. A candidate from the same recruitment, whose EWS certificate is stated to be in the same format, was subsequently recommended pursuant to the judgment dated 28.08.2024. 41. In such circumstances, the distinction sought to be maintained in the case of the petitioner is not supported by any material difference in the relevant facts. The certificate-related objection, viewed in the setting of the advertisement, the circumstances noticed in WP(C) No. 6138/2022 and the subsequent treatment of similarly placed candidates, cannot furnish a sustainable basis for excluding the petitioner from consideration. 42. For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on the ground relating to the EWS Income & Asset Certificate is not sustainable. Accordingly, same is set aside. The respondent authorities, particularly the APSC, shall accept and verify the certificate produced by the petitioner and reconsider his candidature for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) pursuant to Advertisement No. 03/2020 dated 24.06.2020. The petitioner’s candidature shall be considered with reference to his merit position and subject to fulfilment of all other eligibility conditions applicable to the recruitment. If he is found otherwise eligible and falls within the zone of selection on the basis of his merit, consequential steps for his recommendation and appointment shall be taken against the available EWS vacancy, without disturbing the appointments already made pursuant to the aforesaid recruitment process. The entire exercise as directed hereinabove, shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 43. The writ petition stands allowed, in terms above. There shall be no order Page No.# 18/18 as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant