The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on service law, has set aside orders of the Gauhati High Court that invalidated the appointment of a lecturer in an aided junior college on grounds of being over-aged. The Court held that applying the age limit prescribed in the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003, to a selection process initiated under the Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001, was illegal. The bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti ordered the reinstatement of the lecturer, who had served for 18 years before her service was discontinued.
Background of the Case
The litigation began with an advertisement dated February 28, 2006, by the Governing Body of a government-aided junior college in Assam to fill a vacant post of Lecturer in History. The selection process was conducted under the Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001 (“2001 Rules”), which did not stipulate an upper age limit.
The appellant, Jyotsna Devi, and Respondent No. 5 participated in the selection process. On July 24, 2006, the college’s Governing Body found the appellant to have “relatively better merit and suitability” and resolved to select her for the post, forwarding the resolution to the State Government for approval.
Subsequently, the Government, through a communication dated October 13, 2006, condoned the appellant’s age, which was over by 2 years and 7 months. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, formally approved her appointment on March 22, 2007. The appellant then joined the service and, as noted by the Supreme Court, put in a continuous service of 18 years.
Litigation in the High Court
Respondent No. 5, another candidate in the selection process, challenged the appellant’s appointment by filing Writ Petition No. 1707 of 2007 before the Gauhati High Court. The primary contention was that the appellant was 39 years old at the time of her appointment and was thus ineligible under the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 (“2003 Rules”), which prescribed an age limit of 21 to 36 years for recruitment. It was argued that the government’s order condoning her age was illegal.
In response, the State and the appellant argued that the 2003 Rules were not applicable, as the institution was an aided college at the time of the advertisement, and the selection was correctly governed by the 2001 Rules.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on March 30, 2010. The judge found that the 2003 Rules, framed under the Provincialisation Act of 1977, operated in a different field from the 1984 Act governing higher secondary education. The order stated, “I am of the considered opinion that conditions incorporated in 2003 Rules, with regard to appointment and service conditions of persons appointed in Higher Secondary Schools cannot be made applicable to the staff appointed by the Governing Bodies of Junior Colleges.”
Respondent No. 5 appealed this decision. A Division Bench of the High Court, in its order dated February 24, 2012, allowed the appeal. The Division Bench held that although the 2001 Rules were silent on the age limit, Rule 19(iv) of the 2003 Rules had to be applied. The bench concluded: “In the teeth of Rule 19(iv) of the Rules, in our estimate, she was over aged at all relevant times and, thus, was not eligible to participate in the selection process.”
The appellant’s subsequent challenge in the Supreme Court was dismissed on August 28, 2017, with liberty to file a review petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the review petition on May 24, 2023, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rituraj Biswas, argued that the High Court erred by applying rules meant for provincialised (government) institutions to a selection process conducted by an aided institution before its provincialisation.
The Supreme Court bench appreciated the undisputed facts of the case: the advertisement was issued under the 2001 Rules, the appellant was the most meritorious candidate, and the government had exercised its discretion to condone her age for a post in an aided institution.
Delivering the judgment, the Court held that the Division Bench’s decision was erroneous. The Court observed, “In the absence of the advertisement or the spelling out of applicable Rules, applying Rule 19 (iv) of the 2003 Rules, to set aside the approval and appointment of the appellant, in the circumstances of this case, is illegal.”
The Supreme Court explicitly stated its agreement with the reasoning of the Single Judge and set aside the Division Bench’s order of February 24, 2012, and the review order of May 24, 2023.
The Court directed the authorities to reinstate the appellant within four weeks from the date of the order (September 25, 2025). It further directed that the period between her termination and reinstatement shall not be treated as a break in service, and she “shall be given continuity of services for all purposes, without any back wages.” The Court also clarified that the order would not interfere with the services of Respondent No. 5, who is also admittedly working as a Lecturer.
