Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 765
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Shri Nisavilhu Hieme Assistant Registrar, Gauhati High Court – Appellant
Versus
The Gauhati High Court Represented by the Registrar General – Respondent
WP(C) No. 2031, 1831 of 2012
Decided on : 31-10-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. P. Khataniar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. H.K. Das, Mr. S. Dutta, Ms. B. Das, Mr. D. Nath, Advocate,
Point of Law: Rule 18 of Rules reads as Vacancies in higher grades of Ministerial services shall be filled according to merit, and ordinarily by promotion from lower grades, seniority being counted only when merit is equal.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 229, [1], [2], 16, 14 - Gauhati High Court Services [Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct] Rules, 1967 - Rule 18, 7[2] - Annual Confidential Reports - Non-Communication of Gradings - Petitioners have raised a grievance to effect that there were non-communication of gradings made in their [ACRs] by respondent authorities – Representations on record, entries in ACRs, accepted by Accepting Authority, were known to officers and staff of Bench and High Court Employees’ Association, Bench and with no protest lodged in respect of such entries in ACRs for a long period of time. Para 40
Finding of the Court :
It clearly emerged that cases in hand are not in respect of non- communication of any adverse entries in ACRs of any of petitioners - It bears repetition that it is not case of petitioners that they were not aware of entries made in original ACRs for years - In view of situation that employees of Kohima Bench including petitioners, were not dissatisfied with entries/gradings in original ACRs for years, principles laid down in three decisions, referred to on behalf of petitioners, are found not applicable in cases in hand - In peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in cases in hand, as have been discussed above, decision to undertake promotional exercise for vacancies on basis of gradings in original ACRs in existence for years is considered to be most rational and prudent one to this Court, as only alternative of re-writings of entries/gradings in ACRs cannot be contemplated in obtaining fact situation - Petitioners have not been able to show any other equally rational and prudent option available to authorities for undertaking such promotional exercise - In such view of matter, this Court does not find any good and sufficient reason to interfere with recommendations made by Special Review DPC for promotion in its Meetings respectively - Consequently, resultant notifications issued on basis of such recommendations in form of Notification.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The common subject-matter in both the writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 and W.P.[C] no. 2031/2012, instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is promotion from posts in the feeder cadres to posts in the next higher cadres in the establishment of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland.
2. W.P.[C] no. 1831/2012 : Facts of the case :-A total of 6 [six] petitioners have preferred this writ petition. The petitioners are regular employees in the establishment of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland. The petitioners were appointed during the period from 1977 to 1999. At the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner no. 1 was working as Assistant Registrar whereas the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 were serving as Senior Administrative Assistants [SAA]. It has been stated that the seniority lists of the employees in the Kohima Bench were published by the respondent authorities from time to time. The last of such seniority lists [provisional], prior to the institution of the writ petition, was published on 09.12.2010 showing the inter se seniority positions of the employees, as on 30.11.2010.
2.1. In the said seniority list published on 09.12.2010, the seniority positions of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 3 in the post of Assistant Registrar were shown as under :
|
| Table-I |
| |
|
| Post – Assistant Registrar | Date of initial appointment | Date of promotion to Assistant Registrar |
| 1 | Petitioner no. 1 | 20.09.1977 | 15.06.2007 |
| 2 | Respondent no. 3 | 02.09.1987 | 15.06.2007 |
2.2. In the same seniority list, the seniority positions of the petitioner nos. 2 – 6 and the respondent no. 4 in the post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA], earlier known as Upper Division Assistant [UDA], were shown as under :-
|
|
| Table-II |
|
|
| Post – Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA]/UDA | Date of initial appointment | Date of promotion to SAA |
| 1 | Petitioner no. 2 | 02.05.1987 | 12.07.1999 |
| 2 | Respondent no. 4 | 11.09.1992 | 09.07.1999 |
| 3 | Petitioner no. 3 | 12.09.1992 | 09.07.1999 |
| 4 | Petitioner no. 4 | 14.11.1992 | 09.07.1999 |
| 5 | Petitioner no. 5 | 17.03.1994 | 15.06.2007 |
| 6 | Petitioner no. 6 | 09.08.1999 | 15.06.2007 |
2.3. A Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] consisting of two members held a Meeting on 02.11.2010 in order to recommend names of the candidates for filling up a number of vacant posts and also the resultant vacancies at various levels in the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, by promotion. As per the Note of the Registrar, Kohima Bench dated 14.07.2010, one post of Joint Registrar, one post of Superintendant and three posts of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA] were available to be filled up. The DPC was also requested to consider candidates for filling up the resultant vacancies in the event of filling up the above vacant posts by appointment on promotion from amongst the eligible employees of the Kohima Bench as well as one newly created post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA]. The DPC considered the relevant Annual Confidential Reports [ACRs] and other documents of the eligible employees, as placed by the Registrar of the Kohima Bench for filling up of the vacant posts, the resultant vacancies thereof and the newly created post of Senior Administrative Assistant [SAA].
2.4. For the resultant vacant post of Deputy Registrar, the DPC considered the candidatures of the then two Assistant Registrars serving in the Kohima Bench, that is, the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 3. For the purpose of promotion, the DPC considered the ACRs and other documents of those two candidates for the years from 2006 to 2009 and found that both of them were appointed to the post of Assistant Registrar on the same da
