Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010163702020 2026:GAU-AS:6378 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4898/2020 DR. AMAD UDDIN S/O. LT. IRMAN ALI, VILL. AND P.O. CHANGMAJI, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782440. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019. 3:THE GOVERNING BODY OF S.S. COLLEGE REP. BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE GOVERNING BODY HAILAKANDI P.O. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151. 4:THE SELCTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST OF ASSTT. PROFESSOR (BOTANY) REP. BY THE SECRETARY CUM PRINCIPAL OF S. S. COLLEGE HAILAKANDI P.O. AND P.S. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI Page No.# 2/12 ASSAM PIN-788151. 5:THE PRINCIPAL (I/C) S.S. COLLEGE HAILAKANDI P.O. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151. 6:HEAD OF THE BOTANY DEPTT. S.S.COLLEGE HAILAKANDI P.O. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151. 7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM. PIN - 781006. 8:SHEEMANTA JYOTI DEKA S/O. SRI SIVA PRASAD DEKA R/O. BAMUNPARA WARD NO.6 GOALPARA P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. K I MAZUMDER,MR J ABEDIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MR. B BORAH(R-8),MR. D J DAS(R-8),MR. K N CHOUDHURY (R-8),MR. P. DEKA (R8),MR. B BORAH (R8),MR. B. C. DAS (R8),MR. B. DEURI, GA, ASSAM (R7),MR. B PURKAYASTHA (R3, R5),MR. A K DUTTA (R3, R5) Page No.# 3/12 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 07.05.2026 Heard Mr. J Abedin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das learned Standing counsel for Higher Education, Mr. B. Borah for respondent No.8 and Mr. B. Purkayastha appeared for respondent No. 3 and 5. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition had qualified the HSLC examination in the year 1994 and had passed the HSLC examination in the year 1996. He completed the BSc with a major in Botany in the year 1999 and he completed his MSc in Botany in the year 2002. The petitioner thereafter worked as a junior research fellow from 2003 to 2005 and as a senior research fellow from 2005 to 2008 under the Botanical Survey of India, Eastern Circle, Shillong. The petitioner qualified the teacher's eligibility test examination in the year 2013. The petitioner appeared for the post of Assistant Teacher in Science in the Jamunamukh Higher Secondary School, Jamunamukh, Hojai and being successful in the selection process was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Science) in Jamunamukh Higher Secondary School vide order dated 04.03.2014. The petitioner thereafter completed his B.ed. in the year 2018 on deputation. 3. On 16.10.2019, the Principal-in-charge of SS College, Hailakandi issued an advertisement inviting applications for various sanctioned posts of Assistant Page No.# 4/12 Professors in the SS College, Hailakandi. In the said advertisement, two posts of Assistant Professors in Botany were mentioned against reservations for ST (P) and OBC/MOBC. The age limit prescribed in the advertisement was 38 years as on the first date of year i.e., as on 01.01.2019. The petitioner submitted his NOC dated 31.07.2019. Being qualified for the aforesaid post, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Botany in the OBC category. The petitioner submitted an NOC dated 31.07.2019, issued by the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon along with his application. This application was submitted to the college authorities directly. The petitioner had also submitted another set of applications to the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon on 23.10.2019 through proper channel, which was forwarded by the Principal of the Jamunamukh Higher Secondary School on 23.10.2019 itself. The Inspector of Schools, Nagaon had forwarded the same application to the Principal of the SS College, Hailakandi. The petitioner was thereafter issued a call letter dated 20.02.2020, asking him to appear before the interview board on 07-03-2020. In the interview held on 07.03.2020, four candidates had participated, including the petitioner. 4. When the petitioner had not been informed about the outcome of the selection process, he made several approaches to the college authorities and also to the Director of Higher Education Assam. However, none of his requests received attention, save and except the Principal of the College stating by his letter dated 08.05.2020 that the process of selection was underway. On 25.10.2020, the petitioner came to know from a reliable source that the Page No.# 5/12 Governing Body of the College, in its meeting dated 20.10.2020, had made recommendation of a particular candidate against the post to which the petitioner had submitted his candidature. Applications filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act did not evoke any response from the concerned college. Fearing the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner to accommodate other candidates, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. By the order dated 20.11.2020, this Court while issuing notice had taken note of the apprehension of the petitioner that his candidature may have been rejected on the ground of discrepancy in the NOC issued to the petitioner, this court had issued notice upon the respondents and as an interim direction, had restrained the respondent authorities from proceeding further in the selection process with regard to the Post of Assistant Professor, Botany, (OBC) in the SS College, Hailakandi till further orders. 6. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner had filed an Interlocutory Application No. 73 of 2021, which was allowed by this Court. Accordingly, the cause title of the writ petition was corrected by hand in pleading the respondent number 8 into the present proceeding. By the same order, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Personal Department of the State of Assam was also impleaded as party respondent number 7. 7. The respondent in the Higher Education Department have not filed any response to the writ petition, although the writ petition had been filed in the Page No.# 6/12 year 2020 and is being taken up for hearing in the year 2026. The respondent number 5 in the writ petition, namely the Principal-in-Charge of the SS College has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, a stand has been taken that the style and manner of the issuance of the NOC to the petitioner is not as per proper format and since the NOC submitted by the petitioner was not in the format expected by the Selection Committee, the same was rejected. 8. It was further observed by the selection committee that the petitioner's age on 01.01.2019 was 41 years and 1 day and therefore, he was over-aged by 1 day as on 01.01.2019. It was thus contended, for and on behalf of the selection committee as well as the recruiting college, that the candidature of the petitioner had been rejected not only on the ground of submission of an improper NOC but also on the ground of being over-aged for participating in the selection process. The respondent number 5 has contended that the petitioner's date of birth admittedly is 31.12.1977 and therefore, his age as on 01.01.2019 would be 41 years and 1 day. 9. It was further contended that even with the relaxation of three years being granted to a candidate belonging to the OBC category, the petitioner did not fulfil the requirement of age to participate in the selection process. Accordingly, it was prayed that the writ petition be rejected. 10. The respondent number 8, that is, the candidate who had been selected and recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Botany Page No.# 7/12 (OBC) has also filed the affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit, the deponent/respondent number 8 has contended that the petitioner has not stated his age in the writ petition and therefore, there appears to be an attempt to suppress material fact. 11. The deponent has contended in the affidavit that the NOC dated 31.07.2019 did not satisfy the requirements of the selection committee and the NOC dated 16.03.2020 being issued after the last date of submissions of applications cannot be taken into account. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 12. Both the respondents have annexed a letter dated 09.09.2019 issued by the Principal of the Pandit Deendayal Upaydhayan Adarsha Mahavidhalaya Eraligool, Karimganj to show that the petitioner did not need the criteria of age even when he applied for the aforesaid college. 13. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the contesting parties, have been considered. In so far as the No objection certificate required to be issued by the employer of the petitioner is concerned, this Court finds that the Inspector of Schools, who was the competent authority to issue no objection certificates to incumbents who were willing to apply for other posts, had issued the certificate, expressing no objection if the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) in various colleges of Assam. 14. The Department of Education has not disputed the contention of the petitioner that he had filed an application through the Inspector of School Page No.# 8/12 submitting his candidature for the Post of Assistant Professor (Botany) to the Principal of SS College, Hailakandi. In any case, it is not disputed by the respondent No.4 and the respondent No.5 that the petitioner had produced an NOC issued prior to the last date of application and the objection raised is only with regard to the format of the NOC. The format of an NOC cannot be said to be in the hands of an incumbent who applies for the same. It is upon the authority issuing the NOC to decide the format in which he issues a certificate. In the considered view of this court, when the NOC had been issued expressing no objection to the petitioner for applying for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) in different colleges, the stand of the respondents regarding the format of the NOC would be of no consequence in the present case. It has to be understood that the NOC issued to the petitioner sufficed. The requirement of the advertisement and it is declared accordingly. 15. The second issue to be determined is with regard to the calculation to the age of the petitioner as on 01.01.2019. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the General Clauses Act to impress upon this Court that while calculating a certain period, the first day and the last day of the period was required to be excluded. He also placed reliance on the provisions of the Limitation Act to buttress his submissions. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in Prabhu Dayal Sisma versus Rajasthan and Another Page No.# 9/12 reported in (1986) 4 SCC 59 to submit that the Apex Court had held that in computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he must be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the 18th anniversary of that day. In that case, when the appellant having been born on 2nd of January, 1956, it was held that he had attained the age of 28 years but had also completed the same at 12 o'clock on midnight of January 1, 1984. On the next day, that is on the 2nd of January 1984, the appellant was held to be one day more than 28 years old. 18. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted on the basis of the aforesaid judgment that the petitioner having been born on 31.12.1977, on 01/01/2019 his age would be 41 years and one day. The age limit prescribed in the advertisement was 38 years as on first day of the year in which the advertisement was issued, that is on 01/01/2019 and the petitioner being a candidate of the of the OBC category, he would be entitled to a relaxation of three years which would make the upper age limit for the petitioner to be 41 years. 19. Having considered the judgment of the Apex Court regarding the mode and manner of calculating the age of a candidate, where a fraction of a day is to be treated as a full day and specified age will be deemed to have been attained on a day preceding the anniversary of birth day, this Court finds that the petitioner had attained the age of 41 years on 30/12/2018 and therefore as on 01/01/2019, he was overaged to have applied for the post. The prayers in the Page No.# 10/12 writ petition, therefore cannot be allowed by this Court. 20. There is however another aspect of the matter. In the case of Prabhu Dayal Sesma (Supra), the Apex Court had taken note of the hardship caused to the appellant therein. In the present case also, this Court notices that it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had already faced the interview and the class-room presentation and interaction related to the subject matter was also held with the subject experts and after the interaction, the petitioner could visualize that everything had gone smoothly to their satisfaction. This aspect of the matter has not been denied by the respondent No.5, the Principal in charge of the SS College Hailakandi, who was also the Secretary of the Selection Committee. 21. It is the case of the petitioner that he would have scored the highest marks in the event his candidature had not been rejected on the ground of the format of the no-objection certificate and/or of him being overaged. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are provisions in the relevant rules and also in the relevant Office Memorandums, which allow overaged candidates to apply for condonation of age and empower the competent authority to allow such condonation of age. He has submitted that the issue of being overage had been brought to notice only at the stage of the interview and prior to that the petitioner was under a bonafide impression that he fulfilled the criteria and even the concerned college authorities had issued him the admit card under the same impression. He has submitted that the interests of justice Page No.# 11/12 would suffer if the petitioner is not allowed the opportunity to pray for a condonation of age to the competent authority at this stage. The learned counsel for the Higher Education department has submitted that if an application is filed, the same would have to be considered on the basis of the merit of the application and the petitioner cannot claim any right for condonation of his age. 22. This Court is also of the considered opinion that in the present case, the ends of justice would suffice if the petitioner is allowed an opportunity to request the competent authority for grant of a condonation/relaxation of his age for his continued participation in the selection process under consideration. Therefore, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a representation on or before 18th of May 2026, before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Higher Education, praying for relaxation/condonation of his age. On receipt of the application/representation, the said authority shall pass necessary orders or cause necessary orders to be passed thereon within a period of one month from date of receipt of the application from the petitioner. In case the petitioner does not prefer the application within the time frame given, no further action would be called for. In the event the appropriate authority grants condonation or relaxation in age to the petitioner, his candidature shall be considered on merits for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) (OBC NCL) in the SS College, Hailakandi. The interim orders passed on 20.11.2020 shall remain in force till the time the application of the petitioner is Page No.# 12/12 decided by the competent authority. In case the petitioner fails to file the application on or before 18th of May 2026, the interim order passed on 20.11.2020 shall stand vacated on 19th of May, 2026. 23. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant