In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam Government to appoint six candidates under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. The court deemed the rejection of the EWS certificates submitted by the petitioners as unreasonable given the nascent stage of the EWS policy and the absence of a specified certificate format at the time.
The case, WP(C)/6138/2022, was heard by Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, with senior advocates Mr. K. K. Mahanta and Mr. K. Singha representing the petitioners, while the respondents were represented by Mr. P. Nayak, SC-P&RD, Shri T. C. Chutia, Additional Senior Government Advocate, and others.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, seven candidates including Chayanika Phukan and six others, had applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in response to an advertisement issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department on June 24, 2020. The advertisement was for 344 posts, of which 33 were reserved under the EWS category. Despite securing marks higher than the cut-off in the final select list published on May 31, 2022, the petitioners were denied appointments while candidates with lower scores were appointed.
The petitioners argued that their EWS certificates were in order and that the rejection by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) was arbitrary. They contended that the certificates were issued for the financial year 2019-2020, which was in compliance with the requirements set out in the advertisement. The petitioners highlighted that they were the first batch to apply under the EWS category following the 103rd Amendment to the Constitution, which introduced EWS reservations.
Key Legal Issues
The primary legal issue in the case revolved around the validity and format of the EWS certificates submitted by the petitioners. The petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Mahanta, argued that there was no specific format for the EWS certificates in the original advertisement. Furthermore, he emphasized that the certificates submitted by the petitioners were valid as they were issued for the appropriate financial year.
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Mr. Nayak and Mr. Chutia, contended that the certificates did not meet the requirements to establish the petitioners as eligible under the EWS category. They argued that the certificates were issued mid-financial year and therefore were not in accordance with the guidelines.
Court’s Decision
After hearing both parties, Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that the rejection of the EWS certificates by the authorities was based on a narrow technical interpretation that failed to consider the nascent stage of the EWS policy implementation. He noted that the petitioners were the first batch to apply under the EWS quota after the constitutional amendment and that no clear format for the certificate was provided at the time.
In his judgment, Justice Medhi stated, “The rejection of the certificates submitted by the petitioners cannot be termed as a reasonable approach, more so, when the concept itself was in a nascent stage.” The court further noted that while there were 35 vacancies reserved for the EWS category, only 28 appointments had been made, leaving room for the petitioners’ appointments without affecting those already appointed.
Important Observations by the Court
Justice Medhi highlighted several key points in his judgment:
1. Nascent Stage of EWS Policy: The court recognized the EWS reservation policy’s early stage of implementation and the lack of clarity regarding the certificate format. “In the absence of a clear-cut certificate format, the rejection…cannot be termed as a reasonable approach,” Justice Medhi noted.
2. Interim Measures and Diligence of Petitioners: The court appreciated the diligence of the petitioners in pursuing their claims, noting their earlier efforts to secure a select list with aggregate marks through a separate writ petition, WP(C)/4441/2022.
3. Existing Vacancies and Appointments: The court observed that there were still seven vacancies in the EWS quota, and therefore directed that the petitioners be appointed without disturbing the appointments of other candidates.
Final Order
The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Panchayat and Rural Development Department to appoint the petitioners to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the existing vacancies reserved under the EWS category. The court also merged its interim order dated September 19, 2022, with this final judgment, ensuring that the selected candidates would have to give way to the petitioners if their case succeeded.
