Legal Review and Analysis of Jyotsna Devi vs The State of Assam & Ors 2025 INSC 1156
1. Name and Citation of the Judgment
Jyotsna Devi vs. The State of Assam & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 011777-011778 of 2025 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 13145-13146 of 2025), Supreme Court of India, decided on September 25, 2025.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti.
2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions
The judgment centers on the conflict between two sets of rules governing appointments in educational institutions in Assam:
The Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001 (2001 Rules): These rules were specifically framed for the management and control of aided junior colleges. Crucially, they did not prescribe any upper or lower age limit for the post of Lecturer.
The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 (2003 Rules): These rules were enacted under the Provincialisation Act, 1977, and prescribed an age limit of 21 to 36 years for recruitment (Rule 19(iv)).
3. Basic Details of the Judgment
Parties:
Appellant: Jyotsna Devi (the original appointee to the post of Lecturer in History).
Respondents: The State of Assam & Ors., including Respondent No. 5, a rival candidate who challenged the appellant's appointment.Subject Matter: A challenge to the orders of the Gauhati High Court which set aside the appellant's appointment as a Lecturer.
Origin of Dispute: An advertisement dated February 28, 2006, issued by an aided college to fill a vacant post of Lecturer in History. The appellant was selected based on merit.
4. Core Principle and In-Depth Analysis of the Judgment
The Central Issue: Determining the Applicable Service Rules for an Aided Institution
The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the 2003 Rules (which contained an age limit), which were meant for provincialised schools, could be applied retrospectively to invalidate an appointment made in an aided institution based on the 2001 Rules (which had no age limit), especially when the advertisement and selection process were conducted under the latter.
The Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning
The Court undertook a thorough examination of the factual and legal timeline, which can be broken down as follows:
1. Chronology of Events and the Governing Law:
The Court emphasized the following undisputed sequence:
The advertisement (Feb 2006) was issued by an aided institution.
The advertisement explicitly referred to the 2001 Rules.
The 2001 Rules, governing aided junior colleges, contained no age limit.
The appellant participated in the selection process, emerged as the meritorious candidate (Serial No. 1), and was recommended by the Governing Body.
The State Government, in a step of "abundant caution," condoned a minor overage (2 years, 7 months) even though the governing rules did not prescribe any limit.
The appointment was approved, and the appellant served continuously for 18 years.
The institution was provincialised after the appellant's appointment.
2. The High Court's Error in Applying the 2003 Rules:
The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench of the High Court committed a fundamental error by applying Rule 19(iv) of the 2003 Rules to quash the appointment. The Court agreed with the reasoning of the Learned Single Judge who had initially upheld the appointment, noting that:
The 2003 Rules were framed under the Provincialisation Act, 1977, which had a different objective (provincialisation of secondary education).
The 2001 Rules were framed for aided junior colleges under a different regulatory scheme (the Assam Higher Secondary Education Act, 1984).
Both sets of rules operated in "different fields." Applying the 2003 Rules to an appointment process initiated under the 2001 Rules was, therefore, illegal and incorrect.
3. Sanctity of the Selection Process and Legitimate Expectations:
The judgment underscores the principle that the rules applicable on the date of the advertisement govern the entire selection process. A candidate's eligibility is determined based on the criteria advertised. To apply a different set of rules after the selection is complete unfairly prejudices a selected candidate who acted in accordance with the advertised terms. The Court held that the appellant had a legitimate expectation to be governed by the 2001 Rules.
5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the High Court Division Bench dated February 24, 2012, and the Review Petition order dated May 24, 2023. The Court issued the following specific directions:
Reinstatement of the Appellant: Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were directed to reinstate the appellant, Jyotsna Devi, to the post of Lecturer within four weeks.
Continuity of Service: The period between her termination and reinstatement was to be treated as continuous service for all purposes. However, the Court denied her claim for back wages.
Protection for Respondent No. 5: Recognizing that Respondent No. 5 (the rival candidate) had also been working as a Lecturer, the Court expressly protected her employment, stating that her services "shall not be interfered with" as a consequence of this order.
6. Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) Based on the Judgment
Question 1: In the case of Jyotsna Devi vs. State of Assam, which set of rules did the Supreme Court hold was applicable to the appellant's selection process for the post of Lecturer?
A) The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003.
B) The Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001.
C) The Fundamental Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
D) The Assam Higher Secondary Education Act, 1984, without any specific rules.
Answer: B) The Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001.
Question 2: What was the Supreme Court's primary reason for setting aside the High Court's decision that had invalidated Jyotsna Devi's appointment?
A) The Court found that the appellant had forged her age certificate.
B) The Court held that the High Court erred by applying a set of rules (2003 Rules) that were not governing the selection process at the time of the advertisement and appointment.
C) The Court decided that the age limit in the 2003 Rules was unconstitutional.
D) The Court ruled that the Governing Body did not have the authority to select the appellant.
Answer: B) The Court held that the High Court erred by applying a set of rules (2003 Rules) that were not governing the selection process at the time of the advertisement and appointment.