WP(C) 5253/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the notice d ated 10.12.2008 issued by the Director of Printing and Stationery, Assam declari ng the results of the selection held from 17.11.2008 to 26.11.2008 for the posts of Forme Carrier and Counter in Assam Govt. Press and directing the selected ca ndidates to attend the practical test scheduled to be held on 15.12.2008 and 16. 12.2008 at 11 A.M. Since in both the writ petitions the same notice and the proc ess of selection is under challenge those are taken up for hearing and disposal together. 2. A process of selection for 9(nine) posts of Forme Carrier and 6( six) posts of Counter in Assam Govt. Press was initiated by the Director of Prin ting and Stationery, Assam by notifying the vacancies to the Employment Exchange on 17.4.2008. The names of certain candidates, which include the petitioners as well as the private respondents were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for c onsideration for appointment to the said posts. Accordingly, viva-voce test was held between 17.11.2008 and 26.11.2008 and a list of successful candidates, for appearing in the practical test, was notified by the Director by the notice date d 10.12.2008, which is under challenged in the present writ proceedings. 3. I have heard Mr. MH Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned State counsel appearing for the State respon dents as well as Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the priva te respondents in both the writ petitions. 4. Mr. MH Chouhdury, learned counsel for the petitioners has submit ted that the respondent authority though notified altogether 15 posts, seven can didates, who are the private respondents, were only selected, although the petit ioners who have requisite qualification as required under the provisions of Assa m Govt. Press Subordinate Service Rules, 1994 (in short the 1994 Rules) and did well in the interview, were not selected by the respondent authority. Mr. Choudh ury further submits that there is no reason why the private respondents should b e preferred when the petitioners have the requisite qualifications for considera tion for appointment to the posts and did well in the interview. Referring to th e affidavits filed by the Director on 21.12.2010 as well as on 7.1.2011, it has also been submitted by Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioners, t hat it is evident that except for three candidates selected against the posts of Forme Carrier none of the candidates selected vide the impugned notice dated 10 .12.2008 have the requisite qualifications as laid down in the 1994 Rules. Mr. C houdhury, therefore, submits that the notice dated 10.12.2008 needs to be set as ide. 5. Mr. Ghosh, learned State counsel appearing for the State respond ents and its officials placing reliance on the aforesaid affidavits dated 21.12. 2010 and 7.1.2011 has submitted that altogether fifteen candidates have been sel ected against fifteen available vacancies of Forme Carrier and Counter and out o f which only three candidates selected for the post of Forme Carrier have the re quisite qualifications and the other candidates including the private respondent s do not possess the qualifications stipulated in the 1994 Rules. Mr. Ghosh, how ever, submits that since there is urgent need for appointment to the posts of Fo rme Carrier and Counter, the respondents may be allowed to complete the process of appointment pursuant to the selection already made. 6. Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the private r espondents referring to the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petiti on, more particularly in Para 12 of the WP(C) No. 5253/2008, has submitted that it the case of the petitioners that the private respondents are qualified for be ing considered for appointment under the 1994 Rules and what the petitioners are claiming is that they should also be selected for appointment. Mr. Mazumdar fur ther submits that the nature of job and duties attached to the posts of Forme Ca rrier and Counter may not justify the minimum requisite qualification provided i n the 1994 Rules and the Govt. may, keeping in view the urgent need of Forme Car rier and Counter, consider the relaxation of such qualifications as stipulated i n the 1994 Rules. It has also been submitted that it being the case of the petit ioners that out of the fifteen posts only seven persons have been selected, the private respondents have no objection if the petitioners are also directed to be considered for appointment. 7. As noticed above, the Director of Printing and Stationery, the r espondent No. 3, who is the appointing authority, initiated the process for sele ction of candidates for appointment to the posts of Forme Carrier and Counter. T he State of Assam, in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed 1994 Rules laying down the minimum qual ification for appointment to the post of Forme Carrier and Counter and also the manner of selection. Rule 8 of the said Rules provides that the academic qualifi cation of the candidate for direct recruitment shall be such as may be prescribe d by the Govt. from time to time. The qualification and the experience, as on th e date of commencement of these Rules, are stipulated in Schedule II to the said Rules. It is not the case of any of the parties to the present proceeding that the qualification as prescribed in Schedule II has subsequently been altered or amended. The qualification for the post of Forme Carrier and Counter, as prescribed in th e aforesaid Rules, are as follows :- FORME CARRIER: Matriculate who have completed course in Letter Press Machine Ope rator from I.T.I. and passed All India Trade Test conducted by the Government of India after completion of prescribed Apprenticeship Training in the Assam Gover nment Press or any other Government recognized Press. COUNTER: Matriculate I.T.I. passed who have completed 2 years Apprenticeship T raining in Book Binding in the Assam Government Press or any other Government re cognized Press and passed the All India Trade Test conducted by the Government o f India. 8. The Director of Printing and Stationery, respondent No. 3, in th e affidavit filed on 23.6.2009, on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, has con tended that the District Employment Exchange, pursuant to the request made by th e Director, sponsored the names of 236 candidates, out of which 108 candidates f or the post of Forme Carrier and 128 candidates for the post of Counter. It has also been contended that out of 108 candidates sponsored by the Employment Excha nge against 9(nine) vacant posts of Forme Carrier only 5(five) candidates have c ompleted two years Apprenticeship Training in Letter Press Machine Operator whil e the rest are matriculate and passed ITI in Letter Press and Machine Operator. In the said affidavit it has also been averred that out of 128 candidates appear ed for selection for the post of Counter none has apprenticeship training in boo k binding, for which the selection committee had decided to call for interview t hose candidates who have completed 1(one) year apprenticeship training in hand c omposing, instead of 2(two) years apprenticeship training in book binding, along with the matriculate ITI passed candidates in hand composing, for the purpose o f selection to the post of Counter. 9. This Court being not satisfied with the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Director, vide order dated 9.11.2010 directed the Director to file the additional affidavit relating to the following points:- \(i) Whether the persons selected for appearing in the practical test for the po sts of Forme Carrier have the requisite qualification as laid down in 1994 Rules ? If so, how many of them as well as their names? (ii) Whether the persons selected for appearing in the practical test for the po sts of Counter have the requisite qualification as laid down in 1994 Rules? If s o, how may of them as well as their names? (iii) If none of the candidates selected for appearing in the practical test for the aforesaid posts is qualified, whether any relaxation has been given by the appropriate authority, if so, to produce the copy of such order. (iv) In the absence of any order by the Government, name the authority relaxing the requirement of the qualification for the aforesaid posts? (v) To furnish the complete list of the candidates, who were interviewed for the posts of Forme Carrier, together with the marks secured by each of such candida tes in the interview? (vi) To furnish the complete list of the candidates, who were interviewed for th e posts of Counter, together with the marks secured by each of such candidates i n the interview? (vii) Reason for selecting certain candidates against the reserved quota despite securing more marks than the candidates selected against unreserved vacancy.\ 10. The Director, pursuant to the aforesaid order, filed the affidav it on 21.12.2010 contending that out of the persons selected for appearing in th e practical test for Forme Carrier only 3(three) persons have the requisite qual ifications and only 7(seven) candidates selected for appearing in such test for the post of Counter have the requisite qualification in terms of the 1994 Rules. The Director, however, on the same breath has stated in the said affidavit that out of 128 numbers of candidates appearing for selection for the post of Counte r not a single candidate has the requisite qualification in terms of the 1994 Ru les. In the said affidavit it has also been stated that no relaxation has been g iven by the appropriate authority relaxing the requisite qualification. 11. Since the statements made by the Director in the said affidavit was found to be contradictory, as noticed above, this Court vide order dated 4.1 .2011 directed the Director to clarify the position and to spell out his decisio n relating to the selection process undertaken. The Director consequently filed another affidavit on 7.1.2011 contending that there was an inadvertent mistake i n the affidavit dated 21.12.2010 in stating that 7(seven) persons who were selec ted for the practical test for the post of Counter have the requisite qualificat ion in terms of the 1994 Rules and in fact none of the candidates selected for t he practical test for the post of Counter have the requisite qualification as la id down in the 1994 Rules. In the said affidavit the Director, however, has refr ained from disclosing his decision in the matter of selection except saying that the selection process for 9(nine) posts of Forme Carrier and 6(six) posts of Co unter is complete but no appointment could be made in view of the interim order passed in these proceeding. It has also been stated in the said affidavit that t here is an urgent need for appointment to the post of Forme Carrier and Counter and the functioning in the Govt, press has suffered due to shortage of manpower. 12. From the aforesaid affidavits filed by the Director it is, there fore, evident that out of the candidates selected for appearing in the practical test against 9(nine) posts of Forme Carrier only 3(three) candidates have the r equisite qualification as stipulated in the 1994 Rules. None of the persons sele cted for appearing in such test for the post of Counter have the requisite quali fication. Neither the petitioners nor the private respondents have controverted the said version of the Director. 13. As noticed above, in exercise of the power conferred under provi so to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the 1994 Rules have been framed. The said Rules prescribe the requisite qualifications for the posts of Forme Ca rrier and Counter. Admittedly the power of relaxation as provided by Rule 27 of the 1994 Rules, even assuming it is permissible in law, has not been exercised b y the authority, for relaxation of the eligibility criteria, till date. The sele ction committee of its own has proceeded to select the candidates by relaxing th e requisite qualification, which is not permissible in law as the selection comm ittee has no power to relax any provision of the aforesaid statutory rules. The duty of the selection committee is to select the candidate having requisite qual ification as prescribed in 1994 Rules. 14. That being the position, the selection of the candidates for app ointment to the post of Forme Carrier and Counter, who do not possess the minimu m qualification as prescribed by the 1994 Rules, is contrary to law. The Court c annot ignore such blatant illegality in selecting candidates for appearing in pr actical test. However, admittedly there are 3(three) candidates who have the req uisite qualification and are selected for appearing in practical test for the po st of Forme Carrier. Hence, the selection of candidates for appearing in the pra ctical test for the post of Forme Carrier, except those 3(three) candidates, as well as for the post of Counter, as notified vide the notice dated 10.12.2008 is set aside. The Director shall initiate a fresh process for selection to the rem aining 6(six) posts of Forme Carrier and 6(six) posts of Counter, in accordance with the provisions of 1994 Rules. Since the Director in the affidavit has state d that because of the shortage of manpower, the functioning of the Govt. Press h as immensely suffered, appropriate decision may be taken by the appropriate auth ority to engage persons in those posts on casual basis, as an interim measure, t ill such selection is initiated and finalized. The process of selection, however , shall be initiated within one month from today and shall be completed within f ive months thereafter. 15. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appearing parties that some of the petitioners and the private respondents may in the meantime be come overage and the respondent may be directed to allow them to participate in the fresh selection process that may be initiated, by relaxing the upper age lim it. 16. Mr. Ghosh, learned State counsel submits that if the petitioner s and/or the respondents file any application for relaxation of upper age limit, the same shall definitely be considered by the authority and necessary order sh all be passed thereon. 17. In case the petitioners and/or respondents or any other similarl y placed persons file any application for relaxation of the upper age limit, the same shall be considered by the authority. 18. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed as indicated above. N o cost.