A statutory rejection of PRC must record reasons; grounds cannot be supplied later by affidavit.

The petitioner, claiming that his family had continuously resided in Assam for generations, applied online on 12.03.2025 for a Permanent Residential Certificate (PRC) for Higher Education.

His supporting documents included electoral-roll entries, land records, and the 1951 NRC, in which his grandfather’s name appeared as “Abed Ali” instead of “Jabed Ali.”

The application was rejected on 04.04.2025; the online status merely displayed “Rejected,” without communicating reasons, the appellate period, or the particulars of the appellate authority.

In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents subsequently stated that the rejection was due to a break in linkage between the petitioner and the legacy person because of variations in names.

The petitioner challenged the rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and failure to consider his supporting documents.

Whether the cryptic rejection of the petitioner’s PRC application, merely displaying the status as “Rejected,” violated Section 7(2) of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 and the principles of natural justice

Whether the reasons subsequently disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition could supplement or validate the otherwise unreasoned rejection order

Whether the discrepancy in the petitioner’s grandfather’s name in the 1951 NRC constituted a sustainable ground for rejecting the PRC application, particularly in light of the Circular dated 01.04.2022

Whether the matter should be remitted to the Designated Public Servant for fresh consideration in accordance with the applicable PRC guidelines and statutory framework

The Court applied the Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2013 and Circular dated 01.04.2022 governing the issuance of PRCs for Higher Education, under which eligible applicants include persons whose parents or forefathers have continuously resided in Assam for at least fifty years, persons continuously residing in Assam for at least twenty years, and children of persons falling within those categories.

The Court further applied Sections 2(h), 5, 6 and 7(1)–(2) of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, which confer a right to timely public services and require the Designated Public Servant, when rejecting an application, to record reasons in writing and communicate the reasons, the period for appeal, and the particulars of the appellate authority.

The principles of natural justice and fair play require statutory authorities to pass reasoned and speaking orders, particularly where the decision affects a person’s rights.

Relying on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, the Court held that the validity of an administrative order must be judged by the reasons stated in the order and cannot be supplemented by new reasons in a subsequent affidavit.

The Court found that the rejection order did not disclose any reason and therefore failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 7(2) of the ARTPS Act.

The absence of reasons deprived the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to understand or challenge the decision through the statutory appellate mechanism and demonstrated a failure of conscious application of mind.

The respondents’ attempt to explain the rejection through the affidavit-in-opposition was impermissible under the rule in Mohinder Singh Gill.

In any event, the alleged discrepancy in the 1951 NRC could not, by itself, sustain the rejection because the Circular dated 01.04.2022 clarified that applicants for PRCs should not be required to rely upon unfinalised NRC material as a supporting document.

Since the order was legally defective, the Court set it aside and directed fresh consideration rather than itself determining the petitioner’s eligibility for the PRC.

It accordingly quashed and set aside the order and remitted the petitioner’s application to the Designated Public Servant for fresh consideration under the applicable Office Memoranda, Circulars, Citizen Charter, and the ARTPS Act.

The authority was directed to complete the process within thirty days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment; if any further document was required, the petitioner was to be informed in writing within fifteen days, with the thirty-day period to run from the date of curing the deficiency.

The writ petition was allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.