SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Gau) 539

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MALASRI NANDI, N. KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Shri Yumlam Kaha, Director, Department of Social Justice, Empowerment and Tribunal Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Shri Tabak Hanker, Research Officer, Department of Social Justice, Empowerment and Tribunal Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 166 of 2019
Decided on : 25-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D. Das (Sr. Adv.), Mr. H.K. Nath, Mr. S.K. Deori, Mr. R. Sarma. Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.H. Laskar, Mr. B.D. Goswami, Adv.

Point of Law: Preamended Recruitment Rules there was no prescription as regards the educational qualification for promotion to the post of Deputy Director.

Headnote:

Recruitment Rules, 1998 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 309 - Pension Rules - Rule 2(2) - Department - Promotion - Petition was filed by present respondent No.1 primarily on ground that initial deputation of appellant to Department vide order and his subsequent permanent absorption vide order was dehors Recruitment Rules and also by ignoring claim of respondent No.1/writ petitioner - Case of respondent No.1/writ petitioner for promotion to post of Deputy Director in accordance with Deputy Director (SW) Group-A, Recruitment Rules, 1998.

Finding of the Court:

It has been submitted that in spite of order passed by learned Single Judge in favour of respondent No.1, respondent No.1 is not inclined to pursue case against present appellant and to that effect an affidavit has been filed by respondent No.l/writ petitioner before this Court - Deponent further challenged speaking order and Office memorandum respectively issued by Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh - Deponent due to ailment, had instructed his engaged counsel to inform Hon'ble Court that he is no more interested to pursue writ petition filed by deponent and further instructed to withdraw writ petition pending before Hon'ble court - As such deponent though that writ petition was withdrawn by learned engaged counsel of deponent - It has been submitted by learned Senior counsel for appellant that appellant is holding post of Director on in-charge - It is for respondent authorities to take necessary steps for filling up said post of Director on regular basis as per rules by considering case of the appellant also, as impediment caused earlier as far as appellant is concerned by impugned judgment and order passed in WP(C) does not exist any longer.

Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Nath, for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Arunachal Pradesh, appearing for respondent Nos.2-4 and Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

2. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 11.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.319(AP)/2016, by which the absorption of the appellant vide order dated 21.12.2015 issued on 31.12.2015 WA 166/2019 vide Memo No.DSJE-90/2014(E)/284 to the post of Deputy Director in the Department of Social Justice, Empowerment & Tribal Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh was set aside with further direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director in accordance with the Deputy Director (SW) Group-A, Recruitment Rules, 1998.

3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the present respondent No.1 primarily on the ground that the initial deputation of the appellant to the Department vide order dated 26.09.2014 and his subsequent permanent absorption vide order dated 21.12.2015 was dehors the Recruitment Rules and also by ignoring the claim of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. It was also submitted that though there was an office memorandum issued by the State Government on 28.01.2014 specifying that the minimum qualification for appointment by way of promotion to the said post of Deputy Director would be graduate, which also recommended making amendments in the relevant Recruitment Rules, it was contended that the said office memorandum could not have the effect of superseding the Recruitment Rules, in which no such educational qualification was provided, till the Recruitment Rules were amended. It was contended that at the time of deputation and absorption of the appellant, the Recruitment Rules had not been amended. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge also held that the said office memorandum dated 28.01.2014 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh is a general office memorandum fixing basic educational qualification as graduation from a recognized university for promotion to Group-A, Group-B post. In the present case, the Deputy Director post is a Group-A post. It was also observed that the said memorandum provided for initiating the process for amendment of the existing service rules. According to the learned Single Judge, however, it was found that no amendment to the Recruitment Rules pertaining to the post of Deputy Director, Social Justice, Empowerment & Tribal Affairs Department was carried out and in absence of such corresponding amendment made to the Recruitment Rules, the decision taken by the office memorandum dated 28.01.2014 prescribing the minimum qualification as graduation for promotion to Group-B and Group-A being merely an executive order, could not have the effect of superseding the Recruitment Rules. As such, since the respondent No.1/writ petitioner had already 3 years of regular service, which is also provided in the Recruitment Rules and as it did not stipulate the educational qualification, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was also eligible and the absorption of appellant to the post of Deputy Director without considering the claim of the respondent No.1 was not valid and accordingly, the learned Single Judge passed the aforesaid order setting aside the absorption of the appellant vide order dated 21.12.2015 issued on 31.12.2015.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the fact remains that subsequently on 01.11.2016, necessary amendments were brought in the relevant Recruitment Rules by which it was specifically mentioned that the minimum qualification for promotion to the post of Deputy Director would be graduation. He also submits that when the order was passed by learned Single Judge on 11.06.2019, the Recruitm

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top