JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. N Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. UK Nair, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Also heard Mr. A Chakraborthy, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1.

2. The facts of the case may be briefly noted. The petitioner was appointed on a monthly fixed pay of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred) only w.e.f. 01.12.1992 vide Order No.64 dated 17.11.1992 (Annexure-A). He was thereafter temporarily appointed as Sweeper and attached to the District Judge’s Office at Lakhimpur on a fixed monthly pay of Rs.1560/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred and sixty) only vide Order dated 22.5.2000 (Annexure-B) with immediate effect. The factual position is that the petitioner’s wages were enhanced from time to time and he was assigned with several duties by separate orders and is working till date.

3. That vide advertisement dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure-H), the respondent No.3 invited applications from intending candidates for filling up of four posts of peon in the pay scale of Rs.4560-15,000/- per month under the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur. The minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post was Class-VIII pass. It was also indicated that the preference would be given to the candidates having experience under the Judicial Department. The petitioner responded to the Advertisement and accordingly, a call letter was issued to him by assigning him Roll No.388 vide Calling letter dated 18.09.2013 (Annexure-1). However, after the selection process was over, the respondent No.3 vide order No. 117/13 dated 05.10.2013 published a panel list of successful candidates for appointment against the four posts of peon by placing ten names in the said list. The petitioner did not find himself amongst the list of candidates who were empanelled and being aggrieved, he filed WP(C) No.9 of 2014 which is said to be pending as on date. It may be noted that amongst the ten empanelled candidates in the order dated 05.10.2013, four persons have been appointed as peon in so far as the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur is concerned. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that appointments have however been directed to be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

4. The respondent No.3 thereafter vide Advertisement No. 61 dated 24.4.2015 (Annexure-L) advertised another two posts of peon under the same establishment prescribing Class-X/HSLC towards the educational qualification amongst other criterias. The petitioner admittedly has studied only up to Class-IX. Being aggrieved with the said prescription, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

5. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. N Borah, the learned counsel submits that as per the earlier Advertisement dated 26.03.2013, the educational qualification for the post was prescribed as upto Class-VIII standard and therefore, the subsequent Advertisement could not have been issued prescribing the educational qualification of Class-X pass for the same post. Mr. N Borah by referring to the Advertisement issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup dated 12.04.2013, the Advertisement issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Golaghat dated 14.2.2015 as well as the Advertisement dated 24.3.2015 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon wherein the educational qualification prescribed for the post of peon are all Class-VIII pass. He also refers to the Advertisement issued by the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari for the post of office peon issued on 01.05.2015 (Annexure-P) which prescribes the minimum educational qualification of Class-VIII pass for the post of office peon. According to him when the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge as well as the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner in other district have prescribed the educational qualification of Class-VIII pass for the post of peon, the establishment of the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document