The amended rules of 2000 provided for seniority of promotees over direct recruits, and technicalities or omissions should not stand in the way of doing justice to the parties.

P.G. Agarwal, J.

1. I have heard Mr. H. Roy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and also heard Mr. A.K., Goswami, learned Counsel for private Respondent No. 4 and Mr. N.C. Phukan, learned Senior Government Advocate for the Respondent/State and Mr. K. Goswami, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9, 15 and 16.

2. In this writ petition, the dispute is in between the direct recruit and promotee to the post of Sub-Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies. The appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies is governed by the Assam Supply Services Rules, 1970 and the said Rules had originally provided for direct appointment to the said post. In the year 1989 vide order dated 21.3.89 the said Rules were amended providing that 75% of the vacancy in the cadre of S.I. of Food and Civil Supplies shall be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 25% shall be filled up by promotion from the select list prepared for this purpose. The dispute in the present writ petition is in respect of the appointment made in the year 1992. In the month of January 92, 19 Petitioners before us were appointed as direct recruit, whereas the Private Respondents No. 3 to 25 were appointed on promotion in the month of March, 1991. The provisional gradation list was published on 30.3.1990 and thereafter a final gradation list of 173 S.I. as on 1.12.98 was published vide letter No. DSE. 62/97/106 dated 1.12.98. Some of the Respondents, feeling aggrieved by the said order of final gradation list approached the Administrative Tribunal, Assam in Case No. 26ATA/99 where in some of the Petitioners before us were also party/Respondents. The said case was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.9.99 with the following observation and direction:

19. The learned Counsel of the Appellants submits that, according to the standing Government instructions under No. AAP. 27/50 dated 31.3.60 of the then Appointment Department of the Government of Assam, a promotee appointed is to be given seniority over a direct recruit appointed and it is also reiterated in the draft model service Rules, circulated by the Administrative Reforms and Training Department of the State Government in the framing of the service rules for the State Government employees, for whom the service rules are yet to be framed. The learned Counsel of the Appellants prays to the Tribunal for directing the Government of Assam for taking a final decision in the matter regarding the issue of inter-se-seniority between a promotee S.I. of F and CS and direct recruit SI under the F and CS Department of the State Government.

20. The learned Senior Government Advocate states that the Tribunal may be pleased to issue direction to the Government of Assam for considering the whole matter and to take appropriate decision with regard to the issue of inter-se-seniority between a promotee S.I. of F and CS under the F and CS Department and a direct recruit SI of F and CS under the Department.

21. We have considered the matter.

22. From a consideration of the chronology of the events as stated above, it is obvious that there has been an omission on the part of the Government of Assam in not explicitly laying down a provision by amending the existing provision of the Rule 32 of the Assam Supply Service Rules, 1970 in the matter of inter se-seniority between a promotee Sub-Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies and a direct recruit sub-Inspector of Food and Civil supplies, when the State Government, as per the Assam Supply Service (Amendment) Rules, 1989 introduced the provision of filling up 25% of the vacancies in the post of Sub-Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies by promotion and remaining 75% by way of direct recruitment as against the earlier provision of filling up the entire vacancies in the post of Sub-Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies by direct recruitment. In view of this position of the matter, it is essential to make an explicit provision in the matter by incorporating a suit