WP(C) 4414/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr KK Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr RK Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. In view of the subject matter involved and the previous orders passed, a ll the three writ petitions under consideration are being disposed of by this co mmon order. The petitioners in the three writ petitions are fourteen in number. They had completed the Fishery Demonstrator’s Training Course in the years 1987, 198 8 and 1989 from the Fishery Training Institute at Joysagar or Guwahati, as may b e. Completion of the said course made them eligible for appointment in the post of Fishery Demonstrator. It may be noticed, at this stage, that the last batch o f trainees had passed out from the Training Institutes in the year 1990, whereaf ter, the institutes have not been functioning. This is, perhaps, because of the fact that the number of trainees who had passed out till 1990 far exceeded the n umber of posts of Fishery Demonstrator that could be available in the immediate future. According to the petitioners, the earlier practice in vogue was to draw up a select list from amongst the candidates who had completed the said training course as and when vacancies become available. Such select list which was drawn up on the basis of merit/ performance in the training course acted as the basis for appointment. The said practice admittedly was followed upto the year 2006. According to the petitioners, a select list in a similar manner was drawn up in the year 2007 for filling up 25 numbers of vacant posts of Fishery Demonstrator. However, in August, 2007, an advertisement was issued in respect of the said po sts. The candidates who had completed the training course from the training inst itutes at Joysagar and Guwahati alone were eligible to apply. Contending that th e departure from the earlier practice and the issuance of the advertisement in A ugust, 2007 is not justified, the present writ petitions have been filed. All the writ petitioners, it must be noticed, had submitted applications pursuant to the advertisement issued without prejudice to their rights in terms of the interim orders passed by the Court in the present writ petitions. The respondents have filed their affidavit in the cases, wherein it has been stated that presently there are 86 candidates who have completed the traini ng course from the institutes at Joysagar and Guwahati. As the said training cou rse was completed almost two decades back, the Government had taken a decision t hat the earlier practice of preparation of select list should be departed from a nd an advertisement should be issued in order to enable the employer State to re -test the candidates with regard to their suitability/ fitness to fill-up the po sts. In the affidavit filed, it has been very clearly stated that the advertisem ent in question had restricted the zone of the applicants who can file their app lications by clearly stipulating that the candidates who had passed the training course from the institutes at Joysagar and Guwahati alone will be eligible. As the advertisement stipulate a maximum age limit of 37 years which was crossed by many of the candidates in view of the fact that the training course undergone by them had been completed almost two decades back, the Court desired to know how selections and appointments can be finalised from amongst the candid ates who had undergone the training course at Joysagar and Guwahati in the teeth of the stipulation of the maximum age limit of 37 years. To the above query mad e by the Court, the departmental Secretary has gone on record in submitting that pursuant to the advertisement issued, 50 applications have been received out of which 35 applicants have crossed 37 years but are below 45 years and their over age can be condoned, provided appropriate applications are filed by such over-a ged candidates. The reasons that had prompted the Government to issue the advertisement for the 25 posts in question in departure to the earlier practice of selecting c andidates for appointment have already been noted. If the Government has taken t he view that as the training course had been completed nearly two decades back, the selection of the candidates for appointment should not be on the basis of th e records of the training course and instead the candidates should be re-tested by a fresh process of selection, it cannot be said that the decision of the Gove rnment is based on any extraneous or irrelevant consideration so as to justify C ourt’s interference. The Court is not called upon and, therefore, does not deem it proper to render its views on the correctness of the procedure for selection and appointment so long followed. However, what must be emphasized is that the r easons for departure from the earlier practice and the issuance of the advertise ment in question cannot be termed to be in defiance of logic or reasonableness s o as to warrant judicial interference. In coming to the above conclusion, the Co urt has also taken note of the fact that the respondents have confined the adver tisement to only those candidates who had completed the training course from the training institutes at Joysagar and Guwahati to which category the petitioners along with other similarly situated persons belong. The respondents have also ag reed to condone the upper age limit of 37 years as stipulated in the advertiseme nt once applications for such condonation are filed by the over-aged candidates. In view of the above, the Court finds no infirmity in the selection proc ess that has been sought to be initiated by the advertisement in question. For t he same reasons, the Court does not consider it appropriate to issue any directi on for continuance of the earlier practice of selection for appointment in the p ost of Fishery Demonstrator. It will be open for the petitioners to file requisi te applications for condonation of their respective ages and once such applicati ons are filed, the respondent authority will condone the over-age and proceed in terms of the advertisement issued and finalise the process of selection at an e arly date. All the three writ petitions shall stand disposed of in the above terms.