Supreme Court Upholds Appointment in Aided Institution, Condones Over-Age
Reinstatement Ordered with Continuity of Service, No Back Wages
In a ruling on September 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India upheld the appointment of Jyotsna Devi as a Lecturer in History at an aided institution in Assam, resolving a long-standing legal dispute. The bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti set aside previous orders from the Gauhati High Court that had annulled her appointment due to age-related eligibility concerns.
The legal battle began when Jyotsna Devi was selected for the post by the Governing Body of the College, which had referred to the Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001. Despite the absence of age limits in the 2001 rules, the appointment came under scrutiny due to the conflicting Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003, which prescribed an age limit of thirty-six years for candidates.
Respondent No. 5 challenged the appointment, citing the 2003 rules, which led to a series of legal proceedings. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, in its judgment dated February 24, 2012, had relied on the 2003 rules to overturn her appointment, citing over-age concerns.
However, the Supreme Court emphasized the applicability of the 2001 rules, noting that Jyotsna Devi was chosen based on merit and suitability. The apex court found that the advertisement for the post was clear about the rules governing the selection process, and the condonation of over-age by the government was deemed lawful.
The Supreme Court ordered Jyotsna Devi's reinstatement without a break in service, providing continuity for all purposes except back wages. The court also ensured that the services of Respondent No. 5, who was appointed subsequently, would remain unaffected.
This judgment underscores the court's stance on the applicability of specific recruitment rules to aided institutions, highlighting the distinction between provincialized and aided educational entities. The decision marks a resolution in a legal journey initiated in 2006, reinforcing the importance of clarity in recruitment advertisements and the discretion exercised by governing bodies in appointments.
Bottom Line:
Governing Body of an aided institution resolving the selection of a candidate and condoning over-age - Application of Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution to an aided post in absence of applicable Rules amounts to an illegal exercise of jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s): Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001, Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003, Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
Jyotsna Devi v. State of Assam, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2783771
