Can Rule 19(iv) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 be applied to a selection process governed by the Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Clarifies that recruitment in aided junior colleges is governed solely by the Rules cited in the advertisement, even if later Rules impose age limits.
• Confirms that administrative condonation of over-age under applicable Rules is valid and cannot be negated by later Rules not explicitly made applicable.
• Emphasises the distinction between the 2001 Rules (aided colleges) and the 2003 Rules (provincialised institutions) when determining eligibility criteria.
• Holds that High Courts cannot apply service Rules extraneously to aided institution appointments without statutory or advertorial basis.
• Reinforces that subsequent provincialisation of an institution does not retroactively alter the governing recruitment framework for selections initiated earlier.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. The advertisement for the Lecturer post expressly referred to the 2001 Rules, which contain no age limit; selection was therefore governed exclusively by those Rules.
2. The 2003 Rules, framed under a different legislative Act for provincialised institutions, prescribe an upper age limit but were never invoked in the advertisement or recruitment process.
3. The Government’s exercise of discretion in condoning the appellant’s over-age under the 2001 Rules was lawful and in “abundant caution.”
4. The Division Bench erred in applying Rule 19(iv) of the 2003 Rules to nullify the appointment; there was no statutory or advertorial basis for doing so.
5. Reliance on Shankar K Mandal & Ors. was misplaced, as that case did not govern aided-college recruitments under the 2001 Rules.
6. The Court set aside the Division Bench order, reinstated the validity of the appellant’s selection, and affirmed the Single Judge’s decision.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Appellant)

• The advertisement invoked the 2001 Rules; the 2003 Rules were never made applicable.
• Governmental condonation of her over-age under the 2001 Rules was a valid exercise of discretion.
• She was the meritorious candidate at serial no. 1 and had already served 18 years; nullifying her appointment on extraneous Rules would be arbitrary.
• Applying Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution without clear applicability is illegal.

Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (State/Government)

• Did not dispute the validity of Respondent No. 5’s appointment or the subsequent provincialisation.
• Suggested that the appellant’s appointment could be regularised without adjudicating on the broader question of recruitment Rules in aided colleges.

Respondent No. 5

• Challenged the condonation of over-age and appointment on the basis of Rule 19(iv) of the 2003 Rules, which prescribe an upper age limit of 36 years.

Factual Background

The Government Aided Junior College issued an advertisement on 28.02.2006 under the 2001 Rules for the post of Lecturer in History with no age restriction. The appellant was found meritorious but over-age by 2 years 7 months; the Government condoned her over-age on 13.10.2006 and approved her appointment on 22.03.2007. Respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition challenging the condonation under Rule 19(iv) of the 2003 Rules. A Single Judge dismissed the petition; a Division Bench allowed it by applying the 2003 Rules. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order, reinstating the validity of the appellant’s appointment under the 2001 Rules.

Statutory Analysis

Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001: Govern management and selection for aided junior colleges; contain no age limit for lecturer posts.

Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003: Apply to provincialised secondary education institutions; prescribe a 21–36 years age bracket under Rule 19(iv); include a Repeal and Savings clause (Rule 32) for Rules under the 1977 Act only.

Assam Higher Secondary Education Act, 1984 vs Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1977: Operate in distinct domains—higher secondary vs secondary/provincialised education; the 2001 Rules were framed specifically for aided colleges, not under the provincialisation Act.

No constitutional provisions were invoked beyond Article 309 authorising Rule-making by the State.

Procedural Innovations

No new procedural precedents or guidelines issued; the Court applied established principles on the binding nature of Rules cited in recruitment advertisements.

Alert Indicators

• 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overrules Gauhati High Court Division Bench decision applying 2003 Rules to an aided-college appointment
• ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Single Judge’s interpretation restricting applicability of 2003 Rules
• 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Resolves the conflict between the Single Judge and the Division Bench on which Rules govern aided institution recruitment