Supreme Court Holds Aided-College Rules Govern Selection; Orders Reinstatement of Meritorious Candidate

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti heard an appeal by a candidate challenging Gauhati High Court orders that had set aside her appointment to a lecturer post and upheld the candidature of a rival on the basis of age limits in later-made rules. The appeal concerned the applicability of the Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001 ("2001 Rules") vis-à-vis the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 ("2003 Rules") to a selection process conducted by an aided college before its provincialisation.

The Court allowed the civil appeals, held that the selection was governed by the 2001 Rules as per the advertisement, and found that applying Rule 19(iv) of the 2003 Rules to set aside the appointment was impermissible in the circumstances. The Court emphasised that the appointment process had been initiated under the 2001 Rules and that the Government had, exercising discretion, condoned the overage. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also made clear that "the services of the Respondent No. 5 shall not be interfered with," while directing reinstatement of the appellant.

Background The dispute arose from an advertisement dated 28.02.2006 issued by a college (Respondent No.3) to fill a vacant Lecturer (History) post. The appellant and Respondent No.5 participated; the Governing Body resolved on 24.07.2006 to select the appellant as meritorious and forwarded the resolution to the State for approval. The Government, by communication dated 13.10.2006, condoned the appellant’s alleged overage of 2 years 7 months; formal approval followed on 22.03.2007. Respondent No.5 challenged the condonation and approval by filing Writ Petition No.1707 of 2007, contending that the 2003 Rules prescribed age limits (21–36 years) and therefore she was ineligible.

A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 30.03.2010, observing that the 2001 Rules governed aided junior colleges and that the 2003 Rules applied to provincialised secondary schools under the 1977 Act. The Division Bench allowed Writ Appeal No.262 of 2011 on 24.02.2012, applying Rule 19(iv) of the 2003 Rules and following precedents such as Shankar K. Mandal and Mahesh Gogoi, holding Respondent No.5 over-age at relevant times. The appellant’s SLP was dismissed on 28.08.2017 with liberty to seek review; a review petition was later dismissed. The Supreme Court found that the High Court orders did not properly address which enactment applied and, given that the advertisement invoked the 2001 Rules and the Government had condoned overage before approval, set aside the Division Bench and review orders and restored the Single Judge’s view.

The Court directed Respondents 1–4 to reinstate the appellant within four weeks and to treat the break in service as not affecting continuity for all purposes, but expressly denied any claim to back wages. The Court also clarified that Respondent No.5’s continued service would not be disturbed.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 011777 - 011778 OF 2025 [@ SLP (C) NOS. 13145 -13146 OF 2025] Case Title: Jyotsna Devi v. The State of Assam & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rituraj Biswas For the Respondent(s): Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. AAG (for Respondent Nos.1 & 2); Respondent No.5 not represented.