Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010131152023 2026:GAU-AS:5215 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3478/2023 LAKHAN CHANDRA BORAH S/O- DIMBESWAR BORAH, R/O- VILLAGE NAHARBARI, P.O- NOWBOICHA, P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787023 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES HENGRABARI GHY-36 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:GHANA KANTA SAIKIA S/O- LATE BIDYA SAIKIA R/O- VILLAGE NAKARI WARD NO 2 P.O- AND P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78700 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. O LASKAR, MS A GOGOI,MR. U N CHATTRY Page No.# 2/10 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, MR A CHAKRABARTY (R-3),MR B ISLAM (R- 3),MR. S ALI (R-3),MR. J C GOGOI (R-3) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 02/04/2026 Heard Mr. O Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D P Borah, learned Standing counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. J C Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner assailing the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3 against the post of Dresser in pursuance to an advertisement dated 06.09.2020. 3. The petitioner in the present writ petition, has projected that the Director of Health Services, Assam, i.e., the respondent No. 2, herein, had issued an advertisement dated 06.09.2020, amongst other posts, inviting applications from the intending candidates for filling up of Grade-III post (Technical), including the post of Dresser. 15 (fifteen) posts of Dresser were put up for recruitment vide the said advertisement dated 06.09.2020. It is projected that in terms of the eligibility criteria spelt out in the said advertisement, an intending candidate is required to have a HSSLC or equivalent qualification with experience in Dressing (at least for 3 years). It is further projected in the writ petition that the petitioner, having Page No.# 3/10 satisfied the eligibility criterias, as set out in the said advertisement submitted his application, by also disclosing therein, the experience gathered by him while working as an Office Peon on Contractual basis under the National Health Mission Authorities, w.e.f. 25.02.2009. It is found that along with the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 had also submitted his application. The applications submitted by the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 and others, on being scrutinized, having been found to have satisfied the eligibility criterias, set out in the advertisement, they were required to appear in a Written Examination. After the Written Examination was so held, vide a Notice dated 26.11.2021, the Director of Health Services, Assam published a panel list of candidates found eligible in the next round of selection, i.e., in the Skill Test. The name of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3, found place in the said panel list so published, vide notice dated 26.11.2021. It is further projected by the petitioner that he had appeared in the Skill Test and on conclusion of the selection process, the Director of Health Services, Assam, vide Notice dated 11.05.2022, published a select list against the 15 (fifteen) posts of Dresser, as put up for recruitment vide the advertisement dated 06.09.2020. In the said select list, the Roll No. of the petitioner does not figure, however, the Roll No. of the respondent No. 3, figured, therein. In terms of his selection, the respondent No. 3, along with the other selected candidates, were appointed as Dresser, vide an order dated 14.05.2022. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts, as noticed hereinabove, has submitted that in the advertisement dated 06.09.2020, Page No.# 4/10 it was stipulated that the intending candidate should not be less than 18 years and not more than 40 years, as on 01.01.2020, with upper age limit relaxation provided for reserved category candidates. He submits that the respondent No. 3, herein, on the date, he had submitted his application, had crossed the upper age limit as prescribed in the advertisement. It is further contended that even by extending to the respondent No. 3, the relaxation of age as permissible to be extended to reserved community candidates, he was still found to be overaged. He submits that the respondent No. 3, having been brought into the purview of selection, although, he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria with regard to the age, as stipulated in the advertisement, the selection of the respondent No. 3, would mandate an interference from this Court. 4.1 Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the advertisement, having mandated that the intending candidates along with possessing the qualification of HSSLC pass, should also have an experience of at least 3 (three) years in Dressing, the respondent No. 3, who does not possess the said qualification with regard to work experience, his case was not permissible to be so considered in the selection process held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 06.09.2020. Accordingly, he submits that on the above two grounds, the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3, would mandate an interference from this Court. 5. Mr. D P Borah, learned Standing counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, has submitted that the respondent No. 3, had participated in the selection process and for the purpose of establishing his age, had relied upon a Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. He submits that the date of birth of the respondent No. 3, in the said certificate Page No.# 5/10 was recorded as ‘01.08.1988’. Accordingly, he submits that as on 01.01.2020, the respondent No. 3, had not crossed the upper age limit as stipulated in the matter. Accordingly, he submits that the respondent No. 3, had participated in the selection process by fulfilling the age criteria, as set out in the advertisement dated 06.09.2020. 5.1 With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 3, did not have an experience of at least 3 (three) years in Dressing, Mr. Borah, learned Standing counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, has submitted that a Certificate was enclosed to the Online Application, submitted by the respondent No. 3 and on a perusal of the said Certificate, it is seen that the respondent No. 3, had the experience of working as a Dresser at North East Nursing Home, w.e.f. August, 2010. He submits that the said certificate had established that the respondent No. 3, had also fulfilled the eligibility criteria with regard to the experience, as set out in the advertisement dated 06.09.2020. 5.2 Mr. Bora, learned Standing counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department has further submitted that in the selection process, the petitioner had secured 66 marks in the two segments of the selection process, i.e., the Written Examination and the Skill Test, while the respondent No. 3 had secured 106 marks in the two segments of the selection process. Mr. Borah, submits that the petitioner had secured 45 marks in the Written Examination and 21 marks in the Skill Test, while the respondent No. 3, had secured 86 marks in the Written Examination and 20 marks in the Skill Test. 5.3 In the above premises, Mr. Borah, learned Standing counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department submits that the grounds urged by the learned Page No.# 6/10 counsel for the petitioner for assailing the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3, would not mandate an acceptance and the writ petition would be mandated to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The facts, noticed hereinabove, are not in dispute and accordingly, are not reiterated. 8. The petitioner has assailed the selection of the respondent No. 3, primarily, on the following two grounds – (a) That the respondent No. 3, on the date of submission of his application, was over aged and accordingly, had not met the age criteria, set out in the advertisement dated 06.09.2020; and (b) That the respondent No. 3, did not fulfill the criteria, as set out in the advertisement dated 06.09.2020, pertaining to experience, i.e., he did not have 3 (three) years working experience as a Dresser. 9. With regard to the first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court from the materials brought on record in the present writ petition by the respondent No. 3, finds that the respondent No. 3, had appeared in his HSLC Examination in the year 2015 and in the certificate, so issued to him by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, his date of birth was recorded as 01.08.1988. The prescription with regard to the age criteria is to be achieved by the intending candidates in terms of the advertisement dated 06.09.2020, as of 01.01.2020. Page No.# 7/10 10. Considering the age of the respondent No. 3, as reflected in his HSLC Certificate, this Court finds that the respondent No. 3 was within the age limit prescribed for applying in pursuance to the advertisement dated 06.09.2020 for the post of Dresser. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner for the purpose of questioning the age of the respondent No. 3, had relied upon the age of the respondent No. 3, as recorded in his school records. The age of the respondent No. 3, as recorded in his school records would not be of any material consideration, inasmuch as, it is a settled position of law, that it is the date of birth of a candidate, as recorded in his HSLC Certificate that is to be given primacy for the purpose of drawing satisfaction with regard to the age of a candidate on the date he had submitted his application. 12. Considering the date of birth of the respondent No. 3, as recorded in his HSLC Certificate, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent No. 3, was within the age limit prescribed in the advertisement dated 06.09.2020 and accordingly, on the said count, the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3, would not mandate an interference. 13. With regard to the 2nd ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., the respondent No. 3 did not satisfy the criteria with regard to work experience, as set out in the advertisement dated 06.09.2020, this Court had required Mr. D P Borah, learned Standing counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, to place on record the Online Application Form along with the documents appended to it, pertaining to the experience criteria possessed by the respondent No. 3. Page No.# 8/10 14. Mr. Bora, learned Standing counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, had produced the Online Application Form of the respondent No. 3, along with an Experience Certificate appended, thereto. 15. This Court, on a perusal of the Certificate, appended to the application submitted by the respondent No. 3, finds that the respondent No. 3 had the experience of working as a Dresser at North East Nursing Home, w.e.f., August, 2010, till the date of issuance of the said Certificate, which was on 21.12.2017. 16. This Court finds that from the said Certificate, the respondent No. 3 had more than 3 (three) years of experience of working as a Dresser. 17. It is to be noted that in the advertisement dated 06.09.2020, the experience criteria was not mandated to be so acquired by a candidate concerned from a particular Institution. It was not further stipulated that such experience would also be mandated to be so acquired, while working in a Government Institution and/or a Government Aided Institution. Accordingly, the experience that has been gathered by the respondent No. 3, as a Dresser, while working in the North East Nursing Home, would have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining as to whether he satisfied the experience criteria, as stipulated in the advertisement dated 06.09.2020. This Court finds that the respondent No. 3, had fulfilled the experience criteria mandated in the advertisement dated 06.09.2020. Accordingly, the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3, on the said count would also not mandate an interference. 19. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now consider the submissions made by Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Page No.# 9/10 petitioner, having worked under the NHM Authorities, he was entitled to be given a weightage of two marks per year of service completed under NHM Authorities, subject to a maximum of 20 marks in terms of Clause-7 of the advertisement dated 06.09.2020. 20. Clause-7 of the said advertisement dated 06.09.2020, stipulates that contractual employees working under NHM as Nurses, Paramedics etc., be given a weightage of 2 marks per year of service completed under NHM Authorities, subject to a maximum of 20 marks, so that they can be given suitable and justified preference. 21. The weightage as stipulated under Clause-7 of the said advertisement dated 06.09.2020, in the considered view of this Court is in relation to the experience gathered by the candidate with regard to the works of the post which has been put up for recruitment and he intends to apply against. The said experience cannot be construed dehors the nature of duties mandated for the post against which the intending candidates wishes to apply in pursuance to the advertisement in question. 22. In the present case, it is the projections of the petitioner that he has been working with the NHM Authorities as an Office Peon on contractual basis. It is not the contention of the petitioner that he is performing works of a Dresser under the NHM authorities, during the period of his such engagement with them. The nature of duties discharged by the petitioner under the NHM Authorities, having got no relationship with the nature of duties to be discharged by a person appointed against the post of Dresser, the non-grant of marks to the petitioner in terms of Clause-7 of the advertisement dated 06.09.2020, in the considered view of this Court, is not erroneous and no Page No.# 10/10 direction would be called to be passed requiring the respondent authorities to grant any weightage to the petitioner, as contemplated under Clause-7 of the advertisement dated 06.09.2020. Accordingly, the contention raised by the petitioner in this connection stands rejected. 23. In view of the above discussion, this Court having not found any good ground for interfering with the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3, is of the considered view that the claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate acceptance. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same consequently stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. 24. A copy of the Online Application Form of the respondent No. 3 along with the Certificate appended thereto, furnished by Mr. Bora, learned Standing counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, is kept on record and marked as ‘X’ for the purpose of identification. JUDGE Comparing Assistant